Armed Hate Crime Victim Decides Not to Shoot Attacker
"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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Because he didn't shoot the asshole and thus exercised sound judgment (IN HIS OWN OPINION) he shouldn't tote? Does not an armed society make a polite society? 
I only wish George Zimmerman had made the same choice Mr. Mohammed did. 
...that he bought the gun because of burglaries in his neighborhood. He profiled Martin as a burglar as part of his perceived neighborhood watch role.
...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. How do you think this racist scumbag would have reacted if Mr. Mohammed had pulled the gun on him? He took stock of the situation and decided his gun was not the appropriate resolution to the situation. 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.
It indicated that he just couldn't use the gun, presumably on another person. Which is my point about him needing to look inside of himself to see if he should continue to carry concealed. Something I'm sure you can support.
I kinda doubt he really took stock of the situation, but that's me just guessing. I think he choked. I think he couldn't believe, deep down, that his life was really in danger.
I have mixed feelings on the "escalation" thing, because we also have to consider "justice" or "fairness" as well.
If you were attacked (say, because of your race), and you did not have means to defend yourself, then you get beaten and injured.
If you were attacked, but did have a weapon that you draw and use, then you are fine but your attacker is dead. So we have here a "much more horrific result", because instead of an injured person we have a dead one.
However, in one situation, the innocent person is badly injured while the violent attacker is uninjured. This is obviously unjust. In another situation, the innocent person is uninjured while the violent attacker is dead. This is obviously just and fair.
After taking two pellets to his head and neck, Mohammed stands and watches the man flee, then notices a bystander who could have been hit if Mohammed had taken a shot. His hand is on his gun. But it stays in the holster.
As to the rest of your argument, now we're really reading tea leaves and I could post statistics on domestic violence and guns but I think you're already familiar with that facet of the "escalation" factor.
Bottom-line: the statistics bear it out - less guns means less gun violence.
...which are largely borne out in the limited statistical analysis we do have. So if your position is so supported by the facts why does the NRA and their cronies keep us from getting them?
are you for real? 
I was looking forward how you were going to dodge having to answer the question.
Sleep well you snake. 
