Bond person shoots her client.

[suncowiam]

That's fine.

You want to be so naive to think a man aggressively wielding a shotgun which is clearly the definition of deadly intent towards two women whos only "crime" is trying to make a living and rightfully defending themselves with legal firearms is delusional then it's probably for the best you ignore me.

Far as I'm concerned, it's a crime they had not had the fortune of blowing his head clean off, but I'm glad that they taught him a lesson he's so rightfully deserved to not screw with armed people. Come to think of it, with his criminal track record and profile I don't have the impression he even learned any lesson from it.

Kudos to the women and I hope they recover from the experience and are still packing heat more than ever.

No, I was replying to the wrong comment and misunderstood your posts. My apologies. Please re-read my post #18.

Thanks

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, I was replying to the wrong comment and misunderstood your posts. My apologies. Please re-read my post #18.

Thanks

Np. It was good banter for the debate here anyways. U cool. :0)

 

[Father Heathen]

No more than the fact that this thread is more about guns than it is about the actual event whereas a convicted criminal trying to escape due process of law is somehow painted as a being victim here.

Given how predictable criminals like this are, chances are pretty high he would escape and harm somebody else, so I think this woman saved lives more than one she took for which this guy clearly is a scumbag.

Bondsman as far as I know are regarded as peace officers, and he refused to comply to lawful orders for which there was nobody to blame but himself for what happened.

It could have been all avoided had he just complied so like the jury, I don't blame the woman because she didn't intend to kill him at the start. Her intent was only to arrest him.

I only mentioned shoot him again, because that's probably what the anti gun crowd people want to hear, so I simply indulged in a little tongue-in-cheek comment.

Many areas now require a police officer to be in company with a bondsman. So on a more serious note it would probably be a good time to look at the local laws there when it comes to bounty hunters and taking criminals into custody.

Because having toothless yokels being judge, jury, and executioner is totally a great idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because having toothless yokels being judge, jury, and executioner is totally a great idea.

What irritates me is that there was no way that they could have proven first degree murder. Second degree or at the very least manslaughter would have been a slam dunk. The charges were probably politically motivated. I do not know if the judge did the "right thing" by denying the prosecution the ability to give the jury lesser charges as an option at the end of the trial, but it is clear they realized that they screwed up. They should have had those as an option from the start.

 

[suncowiam]

She's a bondsman, and that means he's out on bail and owes her and is about to skip and cost her money. By shooting him she saves the $30,000 that she has already put up. In this respect she is like a policeman pursuing and escapee. A bondsman may break any number of laws to subdue and retrieve someone out on bail who owes them for that bail. They take a lot of personal risks in the process, and they are given legal leeway. Notice his bail is set at 34,000$ but he only pays about 3,400$. That's a service the bondsman provides, and it is a contract you have with them. They put up the bail, while you pay a fraction, and if you skip they lose the 34,000$ For that reason they are permitted to pursue escaped convicts. If they know the location of a convict they may break and enter almost any building, fire on the suspect etc. By shooting him she saved herself 30,000$ . She is nevertheless in trouble and will probably be sued civilly for $$. Its not like she just gets away with it. She should not have killed him of course.

Not sure what you're suggesting. She made a bad business decision. I would say better that she lost $30000 then him losing his life.

Should banks be allowed to raise guns against everyone that owes them money? Obviously, that's rhetorical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not sure what you're suggesting. She made a bad business decision. I would say better that she lost $30000 then him losing his life.

Should banks be allowed to raise guns against everyone that owes them money? Obviously, that's rhetorical.

I am stating what happened without making an analysis except giving my opinion that she shouldn't have killed him. It seemed unnecessary.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because having toothless yokels being judge, jury, and executioner is totally a great idea.

If it's that bad, then how did she become a qualified bondsman? Come to think of it why are bondsman still a legal profession?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I was replying to the wrong comment and misunderstood your posts. My apologies. Please re-read my post #18.

Thanks

You guys get credit for clearing up a minor misunderstanding.
Too often on RF, such things just fester until the boil pops.

 

[suncowiam]

You guys get credit for clearing up a minor misunderstanding.
Too often on RF, such things just fester until the boil pops.

I do try to have honest conversations here even if our ideals are so opposites.

 

[suncowiam]

If it's that bad, then how did she become a qualified bondsman? Come to think of it why are bondsman still a legal profession?

The question I would also be asking is how did she qualify to be a gun owner. In that specific case, I see no other device that could have aided her in killing him. She made the wrong decision and the gun enabled her with the wrong action.

I understand defense with guns. I can't logically argue that, but on the other spectrum, how then do we stop these senseless killings?

Gun advocates would get less resistance if guns just did good things, right? So then, how do we ensure guns are only used for good things.
Is this the same as an automobile causing a death since I notice you tend to employ that argument? I would argue not. Specifically, she pointed and shot at the man. The analogy of an automobile, is to steer towards a person.

I believe that if you point and shoot at person, the only logical motive is to kill that person. That is the likely scenario if the bullet hits. The law should be redefined to intent of homicide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question I would also be asking is how did she qualify to be a gun owner. In that specific case, I see no other device that could have aided her in killing him. She made the wrong decision and the gun enabled her with the wrong action.

I understand defense with guns. I can't logically argue that, but on the other spectrum, how then so we stop these senseless killings?

Gun advocates would get less resistance if guns just did good things, right? So then, how do we ensure guns are only used for good things.
Is this the same as an automobile causing a death since I notice you tend to employ that argument? I would argue not. Specifically, she pointed and shot at the man. The analogy of an automobile, is to steer towards a person.

I believe that if you point and shoot at person, the only logical motive is to kill that person. That is the likely scenario if the bullet hits. The law should be redefined to intent of homicide.

It is very easy in some states to qualify as a gun owner. I am qualified in my state to have a concealed carry permit simply due to the fact that I am not a convicted felon. Some states it is harder to get such a permit, but it is still relatively easy to buy a gun. And please note, she was not carrying the gun on her so she did not even need a concealed carry permit for that.

And I would not mind if one had to go through a bit more training and scrutiny to get a gun, I am merely pointing out what the rules are for various states.