ReaptheHeat
WKR
If they threw an acorn instead, should he have mag dumped?Does your position assume they saw the canoe and assume they chucked rocks with malicious intent?
A law enforcement officer shot at someone who he saw push rocks off a bridge, at a distance and closing, and rather than any other choice, literally any choice, the decision was to continue the path and ultimately return fire in their direction.
Remember, there's no "man, the splash 3' to our left we thought was a beaver tail, but then 5' to our right another, that's when we knew...", there's only:
saw a large splash up ahead, thought it was a beaver slapping his tail. Then another. Look up, way up- couple of guys tossing large rocks into the river right where we were headed (yurns out it was rest area off of the interstate).
After the third large rock hit, this time closer yet (because either they changed trajectory, and he continued his path into danger) and knowing they saw us (how is this known?) in the canoe- I raised up my .44 and sent a round that way.
>Read those underlines statements. Nothing infers extremely close proximity or timeliness, except possibly the last rock, though I have my doubts ('closer yet'). Then, the decision was fire a shot into the horizon, in their direction ('look up-way up' & 'i raised up my .44 and sent a round that way').
Imagine telling a cop "well, you see, I didn't want to hit them, however, I decided to shoot the clouds in the sky around them as a warning"
How long you reckon you can reload a single shot, interstate rest area rock-15? How long you reckon between splash 1 to splash 2 to splash 3?
I'm expecting either 0, insults, or new emerging details and a harrowing story.
His choice was shooting, into the horizon TOWARDS offenders, after proceeding into a knowingly dangerous situation.
Pre-empt disaster does not equal first action is shots fired towards people on a bridge rest area.
Clue in on 1 piece. He was below and away from rock chockers. Do you reckon the noise from the shot or the bullet itself ceased their actions.
He chose to shoot their direction, not into any embankment or safe area. So then you must agree the bullet and not the noise, but the combination of bullet and direction towards them ceased their actions. Because if you feel it was noise alone, which was omnidirectional, ceased their actions, then his actions of pointing their direction was malicious intent.
Chances mtwarden reported the interaction, retired or not, are probably slim to none for a reason. A reason id wager he knows the outcome of.