Muscatine

Logic



I do understand your anger and your concern. I tried to weigh those very thoughts before I posted the story. In the end this is what I was left with:

1) And most important, a officer has died in the line of duty serving a warrent on a address. (not the person)

2) That person legally purchased a gun, assuming for protection.

3) Many people with in this forum have purchase guns for the same reason.

4) If a informent gave out Hermans address and undercover police went to serve a warrent on that address could the results be the same?


I think people that buy guns for protection do so in hopes of keeping unwanted people out of their house. I find the whole story to be sad. Even if it turns out he was dealing drugs, it's still sad. He never wanted to kill an officer (he was just stupid) and we know that officer wanted to go home. Sad all the way around.......

As stated: Keep guns out of the hands of stupid people.

Peace

Here you go



A link provided where many of the same words have been used on this very issue. Notice how it is a civil discussion and no one is evil for their opinion.

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66158

Peace

hey chosen

were in the article did it say. That person legally purchased a gun, assuming for protection

Simple



The article didn't say it, I did. The article is so poorly written that many facts have to be sought out.

In a fatal shooting of an officer the shooter would be charged with as much as possiable. Since we see no charge of illegal possession of a fire arm we can assume the possession was legal. Since the story points out the house had recently been broke into we can assume the gun was for protection.

Peace