'I just wanted to stop the guy': shooting ruled justifiable

Forgot to Mention wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't KILL someone just because they hit someone else. What if it had been your unarmed brother or nephew that was being shot at? The police had been called. They would not have killed an unarmed man.

Hey forgot to mention, maybe you should the fact that Mr. Fentiman did not intend to KILL anyone. Two women and a baby were being attacked (and being a women wgo has babies herself) I would think you might look at this situation from more than one twisted perspective. But that's only something a normal person would have thought to do before opening their trap.

Forgot to Mention wrote:

I would never engage in road rage or pull over to fight with someone who did. Why did that women place herself and her passengers in such a dangerous situation? Mr. Fentiman was acting recklessly when he whipped out his gun. He caused the situation to escalate and he killed an unarmed man. And that "warning shot" he fired could have ended up in an innocent child playing nearby.

There was no warning shot. Maybe do a little research before you comment. Only shots fired, both in Mr Need's leg.

Fentimans Proud Daughter wrote:

<quoted text>
There was no warning shot. Maybe do a little research before you comment. Only shots fired, both in Mr Need's leg.

I wouldn't worry about what these idiots say. I know you are defending your Dad, and I would too, but you and your dad know the truth. Tell your dad I would of done the same thing, not to many people now a days help out one another.

Marvel B wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't worry about what these idiots say. I know you are defending your Dad, and I would too, but you and your dad know the truth. Tell your dad I would of done the same thing, not to many people now a days help out one another.

Thank you!

Fentimans Proud Daughter wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you!

You Are Welcome!

The purpose of these forums is to allow people to express their viewpoints on a news story, even if others disagree. If some people think it is wrong to pull out a loaded weapon and shoot an unarmed man, they are free to say so. If some people think this was a terrible tragedy that Mr.Fenitman only made worse through his reckless action, they are free to say so. If Mr. Fenitman has a history of road rage and once said he fantacizes about getting a gun and shooting someone, people are free to post about it. It's called free speech, and some of us Americans are rather fond of the concept.

"Forgot to Mention" - THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS BEING EXCERCISED JUST LIKE OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. I AM VERY PROUD OF MY FELLOW AMERICAN, MR. FENTIMAN. I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING. HAVING CHILDREN AND A WIFE MYSELF, I WOULD EXPECT ANY UPSTANDING AMERICAN (OR HUMAN BEING) TO DO THE SAME FOR ME. I WILL JUST REMEMBER THAT THE LAWS MUST BE DIFFERENT IN YOUR WORLD. THIS EVENT HAPPENED AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THANK YOU, HAVE A NICE DAY!

Free speech and bearing arms are rights, but killing an unarmed man is not. You can be as ticked as you want, but some of us believe Mr. Fentiman made a bad situation worse when he recklessly whipped out his gun, and we are entitled to our opinions.

Forgot to Mention wrote:

Free speech and bearing arms are rights, but killing an unarmed man is not. You can be as ticked as you want, but some of us believe Mr. Fentiman made a bad situation worse when he recklessly whipped out his gun, and we are entitled to our opinions.

we all know what they say about opinions.....

Fact is the DA said he did not feel Mr Fentiman broke the law. Fact is the guy he shot WAS braking the law. Fact is in that situation you could end up dead in a matter of seconds. All of the people around the intoxicated violent criminal were in danger. How long before the police arrive? 3 min? you can be dead in 3 seconds...just ask ANY POLICE OFFICER.

The right to defend ourselves. If we can't do that then we are all screwed.

TICKED -#40 EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER
Forgot to Mention -#11 All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored,#14 Do not argue with trolls - it means that they win

The man who he shot was unarmed. You can't change that fact. The police had already been called and were on the way. You can't change that fact. Mr. Fentiman was the one who escalated the situation by introducing a firearm. You don't throw gasoline on a fire. The police would not have shot the guy. They would have arrested him. The police know how to use non-lethal force. Should Mr. Fentiman have his gun permit pulled for his reckless behavior? That's what a poster on the York Daily Record forum has suggested.

Forgot to Mention wrote:

The man who he shot was unarmed. You can't change that fact. The police had already been called and were on the way. You can't change that fact. Mr. Fentiman was the one who escalated the situation by introducing a firearm. You don't throw gasoline on a fire. The police would not have shot the guy. They would have arrested him. The police know how to use non-lethal force. Should Mr. Fentiman have his gun permit pulled for his reckless behavior? That's what a poster on the York Daily Record forum has suggested.

So what you are saying is, that he shouldn't had been shot because he was unarmed, well say he didn't shoot the unarmed man, and the unarmed man dragged Mr. Fenitman out of his car and beat the hell out of him or even killed him with his bare hands, then what would your opinion be on this matter? I wouldn't had taken my chances, of the outraged unarmed man to beat the hell out of me or kill me with his bare hands.

"As a result of Need's threatening (and) assaultive behavior, including, but not limited to, striking (and) threatening various individuals, including two females ... Brian Paul Fentiman was in immediate fear/danger of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or other persons"

"he ran over to my car," Fentiman said, and started pounding on the windows, maybe trying to get inside." "Fentiman said he repeatedly yelled in vain for Need to stay back.

"'Dangerous situation': Rebert said that while Need was unarmed, Fentiman had no way of knowing that.

"It was a dangerous situation, certainly," he said.

Here are some key words of the situation. So yeah I would had done the same thing.

Whatever, like Ticked in PA said, we cannot change what has happened. Just like with any situation, we must accept it and move on. The past is the past and there is no point in dwelling on it. No good has ever come of that for me. The past is the past for a reason. It's history. And if we have learned anything from history, it is that history has a way of repeating itself unless we learn from it. I certainly have learned a lot from my past and seen the effect that dwelling on it can have on a person. I am also reminded of the saying, "If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all."

Remember the Rules wrote:

TICKED -#40 EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER
Forgot to Mention -#11 All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored,#14 Do not argue with trolls - it means that they win

Trolls are usually about your height, right?

Worry about your boys on the streets of New Orleans and leave us alone. As was mentioned, everyone is allowed their opinion.

Forgot to Mention wrote:

The man who he shot was unarmed. You can't change that fact. The police had already been called and were on the way. You can't change that fact. Mr. Fentiman was the one who escalated the situation by introducing a firearm. You don't throw gasoline on a fire. The police would not have shot the guy. They would have arrested him. The police know how to use non-lethal force. Should Mr. Fentiman have his gun permit pulled for his reckless behavior? That's what a poster on the York Daily Record forum has suggested.

When a violent person (already assulted people) says he is going to kill you, are you going to wait until he has the weapon in hand? How would anyone know if he had a gun or a knife, or any weapon before it would be too late? Just because he did not have a weapon does not mean he could not kill you.

as for non leathal force. Yes the police are trained in its use. That is great. After working in a bar in baltimore for 7 years and watching MANY drunken A@@holes get into rages and starting fights, I would NEVER consider trying to subdue one.

An off duty cop in an identical circumstance would never have even been handcuffed. How is it that in my lifetime, the cops have have become the enemies of regular, law-abiding taxpayers?
And ... why is it that they are OK with this?

bmore orioles love wrote:

<quoted text>how can you not say if it was a black or latino shooter it would have went so smooth,haaa haaa that black man woulda been already under the jail..lol I THINK ITS MORE TO THIS STORY THATS GONNA COME OUT,so get ready daddys little girl!

You are such a waste of space!

The only promble I see is he tryed to just stop him by shotting him in the leg. That's a big mistake. The scambag if he lives can come back and sue you or come back and finish what they started. Thank god he died. I have been told by the law to make sure to kill them. To many of them walk or just get a slap on the hand. Don't think most of them are not going to come after you when they get out, the odds are very high they will. I have no feelings for the low lifes in our country. I work really hard for what I have and no one has the right to just take it from me.