SpartanDem (3,882 posts)
Armed Hate Crime Victim Decides Not to Shoot Attacker
Earlier this week, a 24-year-old Tampa-area resident named Cameron Mohammed was walking with his girlfriend into Walmart at around 3 a.m. when the two were approached from behind by a 25-year-old named Daniel Quinnell. Quinnell allegedly yelled racial epithets at the two, then fired 20 shots at Mohammed with a pellet gun — pictured above — striking him multiple times in the head and neck. Mohammed was armed, too — but with a real .45 caliber pistol. He chose not to shoot.
"I don't know. I just couldn't do it," Mohammed said, recovering at his Tampa home two days after the attack. "I couldn't blow this guy away for something he could change later in life. I'm not going to decide this man's fate."
The story is a bizarre, hard-to-reconcile mixture of both right and wrong. The genesis of the attack is something very, very far into the "wrong" column, and when coupled with the recent death of Sunando Sen in New York City, it illustrates just how terrifying America can still be for anyone that even in the vaguest terms codes to the ignorant as "Muslim."
Investigators had released surveillance video of the shooting and photographs of the suspect to the media Thursday. In the video, from Walmart in Lutz, a man deputies say is Quinnell approaches the couple from behind as they walk into the store about 3 a.m. Wednesday. He asked Mohammed if he was Muslim or from the Middle East, according to the Pasco County Sheriff's Office. Mohammed said no, but, authorities said, Quinnell shot him at close range with a gas-propelled pellet gun while saying "n——- with a white girl."
Like Sen, Mohammed is not Muslim. Neither were from the Middle East — Sen was born in India; Mohammed was born in Trinidad and raised in Tampa. That didn't matter to Quinnell, who told police that "they're all the same" after being informed that Mohammed isn't Muslim. It also didn't matter to Erika Menendez, the woman who murdered Sen and used "Muslim" and "Hindu" as interchangeable terms in her statements to police. But an unexpected part of the story is that in Quinnell's case the system worked, at least as much as it can under current law.
http://gawker.com/5973439/armed-hate-crime-victim-decides-not-to-shoot-attacker
What a lucky asshole.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022146146
Yeah...had the cowardly douche bag had taken his .45 out of his holster, and splattered this idiot's brain matter all over the ground when he felt the first shot/pellet, the threat would have been neutralized. Instead, he allowed himself, AND his girlfriend to be shot several times. And you jackasses are going to revel in his "oh so heroic" non-violent ways. That's what liberalism teaches you. Not to stand up for yourself, and those you love. It starts in middle school. Some bully picks on you, and if you fight back, you're thrown out with the bathwater. (i.e punished) Thus, some learn fighting back no matter how dire the situation = bad. What you people don't realize is that it only gets worse as you get older.
The worst part is some of you ignoramouses actually get in positions of power later in life to the detriment of us all.
You people are backwards.
ellisonz (22,670 posts)
13. Just like Zimmerman should have stayed in his damn car...Oh shut the **** up already. Trayvon was a thug.
...Mr. Mohammed probably believed that pulling his gun put him in more danger. If he had pulled his gun, someone might have ended up dead. That'd be the idea, DUmbass How do you think this racist scumbag would have reacted if Mr. Mohammed had pulled the gun on him? He'd have plunked more pellets off the two of them before dying of sudden lead poisoning He took stock of the situation and decided his gun was not the appropriate resolution to the situation. Then, um...don't have one. If he's using it as a tool of intimidation, it isn't going to work. One of these days, he's going to come across someone who just doesn't care that he has a firearm. He best be practicing his draw. Very often guns escalate situations and bring about a much more horrific result that would have occurred otherwise - this is borne out in a myriad of statistical categories as I'm sure you're well aware.
Yeah, because a 45 caliber handgun vs a dastardly pellet gun equals
MORE danger.
sabrina 1 (32,062 posts)
33. Obviously from the story, he was a very wise and intelligent man. He wasn't
concerned about 'legality' he was concerned about the 'morality' of shooting someone who was already running away. Since he was attacked from behind, he most likely had not time to draw his gun BEFORE he was hit and by then, he knew the gun was a pellet gun and the cowardly moron was running away. He is clearly a level-headed individual who saved himself a whole lot of legal trouble and is not responsible for the death of another human being, scumbag or not.
Strength is not in reacting with anger and without thinking. This is one strong human being, able to remain calm and assess a situation correctly even when under attack. That takes guts, intelligence and a whole lot of strength.
Fortunately for the coward who attacked him, he was not a cowardly nut case like Zimmerman who is incapable of thinking and assessing correctly a situation like this.
No, his gut just told him the right answer. Sorry to burst your bubble, best friend of Nadin, but your liberal skrewel brainwashing does have an effect on some people at some point no matter how much instinct/common sense tries to kick in.
In the words of Boris the Animal: Let's agree to disagree, Sabrina. Now go run your panties through the dryer.
nadinbrzezinski (114,792 posts)
8. Honestly you will never know
Until you are faced with it. This is not an altogether unusual reaction. This is why the army and the police train.
You wouldn't have been shot. You'd have been willing to give the thug whatever he wanted. On your knees crying, and begging for mercy, and you know I'm right. He may have shot you just because of how absolutely pathetic you are though. Put you out of your misery, let's say.
Hoyt (10,365 posts)
36. Apparently why a lot of private citizen gun owners train too, and shoot people when not necessary.
When I see someone training on targets that resemble people, I see someone ready to kill without a lot of thought -- just a reaction based upon their training.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:19 AM
nadinbrzezinski (114,792 posts)
37. Alas the training goes beyond paper targets
As the army and police have found.
Please, inform us all with your massive cranium of what you are talking about. Hay bails? Dead pigs? What? I bet you've never even used a firearm. Not even a riffle. So how would you know anything about it? Let alone about military training.
Resume: Is "Military Training Expert" on there yet?
