Who are the Criminals Here?

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, February 20, 2023 04:42
VIEWED: 5196
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:22 PM

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-theives-free-victim-arrested-txt,0,23158
6.story

Hello,

Does anyone have additional information on this news story? I can barely wrap my brain around the wrongness of it.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:25 PM

Since when did we start living in Britain?

Welcome to the slippery slope of socialism.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:39 PM

There must be a law in CO against murdering someone with a gun - so few freedoms left.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:44 PM

Murdering someone with a gun.... wow. You didn't read the article at all, did you?

Man protecting himself, and his property, shoots at thieves.

The thieves will not be prosecuted, but he will for the temerity to try and protect himself/property.

If this were me... whooboy. I would about to be rich. I would sue the hell out of the state, and the police for this one.

You know whats a stupid law? Prosecuters cannot be sued, or put on trial, for bringing foolish charges/cases against citizens.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Murdering someone with a gun.... wow. You didn't read the article at all, did you?

Man protecting himself, and his property, shoots at thieves.

I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:03 PM

Right Piz,

So by your logic, if one of these scumbags was raping your daughter/wife/sister, you shouldn't shoot them.

After all, its not like they are killing them, right?

Or, if someone is stealing your car, which you worked long, overtime hours, to be able to buy... which the insurance will not replace, and which will then cause you to loose your job because you can't get to work on time... nope. Don't shoot them, dont shoot at them. Especially if they are already running away.

Way to be a victim and allow these bastards to continue to victimize others.

Good job.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:05 PM

Hello,

I think there is a clear disparity here, with the gentlemen who were committing felony theft thus far not charged with a crime, while the gentleman who tried to stop them is facing death in prison.

Yet oddly when a police officer shoots a bystander while trying to stop a felonious action, it is the criminal who is charged with the death.

I do not advocate shooting at fleeing suspects unless they are likely to commit violence, but I think the greater sin here was on the part of the thieves. It saddens me that charges were so quick to be brought upon the victim of this theft, and so slow to be brought against the criminals who instigated this affair.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:18 PM

This is how it is in most states. Only a few recognize property rights as justification for using deadly force. In this case, however, I do not think firing a gun is a legitimate response to a vehicle theft. In Florida when you take a concealed weapons permit class, they teach you, they drive it into your skull that you never use deadly force unless confronted with deadly force. I guess the problem with that lies in not always knowing how things are going to go while a crime is being committed.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:20 PM

Castle Doctrine.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:23 PM

Quote:
I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

...What?

I mean, okay, it's not so great that the victim was apparently shooting to kill, if he was trying to stop the theft, a better target is the wheels of the pickup.

But, he didn't kill, and this was defense of property. "Big man?" Your statements are beyond my frame of reference. He was well within his rights to attempt a citizen's arrest because grand theft auto is a felony, and use of force is validated in a citizen's arrest.

What we're getting into here is quibbling over strict liability, for damage caused by that use of force. As a citizen, he doesn't have the same privileges as police in regards to strict liability (IMO, a bunch of bullcrap). But technically, this should be a civil case, not a criminal case, because the man wasn't culpable, so this isn't going to fly. You'll see. Though he might end up paying the hospital bill for the thieves, depending on if they have good representation (insane, I know, but a likely outcome).

Amazing shot, though, for an 82 year old. Gunshot wound to the FACE in a car speeding away and the guy is still alive. Wow.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:30 PM

Piz mentality is the same as this "mothers".

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d26-
As-SCOTUS-ruling-on-Chicago-gun-ban-looms-one-case-defines-gun-control-bankruptcy

The interview is really telling.

Please read up on the case before commenting.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
they drive it into your skull that you never use deadly force unless confronted with deadly force.

Exactly.
That said, he SHOULD have shot at tires.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:08 PM

Hello,

I honestly would have expected the property owner to be charged with 'unlawful discharge of a firearm' or some such, while the thieves would be charged with their felony thieft. The former charge would remind the property owner when not to shoot, while the latter would remind the thieves when not to steal.

Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.

Hey, the victim is an intelligent adult, I mean, what country did he think he was living in?
If you CAN be charged with something, you WILL be charged with something. THAT is the American Justice system, and always has been in my lifetime.
A free victim is a total victim.
DO NOT attempt to do the job of a policeman, or else!

OTOH, you really shouldn't shoot someone in the face for stealing s**t, that really is just a tad over-reactive IMO.

Bottom line, you wanna tag someone with a piece of violence, make sure you maneuver them into starting with you first- and never hurt them more than you can prove they were intending to hurt YOU.

The laughing Chrisisall

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Right Piz,

So by your logic, if one of these scumbags was raping your daughter/wife/sister, you shouldn't shoot them.

After all, its not like they are killing them, right?

You equate stealing a trailer with rape?? Logik by Wulfie. See if your wife agrees with that one...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, if someone is stealing your car, which you worked long, overtime hours, to be able to buy... which the insurance will not replace, and which will then cause you to loose your job because you can't get to work on time... nope. Don't shoot them, dont shoot at them. Especially if they are already running away.

Way to be a victim and allow these bastards to continue to victimize others.

You really are an expert whiner, if, if, if... If I had a gun I would shoot over their heads, not just over their shoulders. You can judge the value of a human life so quickly? And while Colorado does have a death penalty it's not for stealing a trailer.

Does everyone assume they would know it was theft at the time? Maybe Jorgestar called his 2 buddies and told them, "dudes, I just bought this new trailer but I can't get it home, can you guys be a couple of bros and go pick it up fpr me?" heh heh, this'll be so funny.
These 2 could have been repo men at the wrong address - some smartie neighbor kid put a sign on it that said "Free to the First Taker!" how would the old man know? That's why you don't shoot out your window at people FIRST.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I think there is a clear disparity here, with the gentlemen who were committing felony theft thus far not charged with a crime, while the gentleman who tried to stop them is facing death in prison.

Yet oddly when a police officer shoots a bystander while trying to stop a felonious action, it is the criminal who is charged with the death.

I do not advocate shooting at fleeing suspects unless they are likely to commit violence, but I think the greater sin here was on the part of the thieves. It saddens me that charges were so quick to be brought upon the victim of this theft, and so slow to be brought against the criminals who instigated this affair.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

See my response to Wulf, re: Rush to Judgment. We really do try and give the responsibility to prosecuting the law with lethality in the field to the fewest people (Police) and to those we give training - I know many of you will scoff - because going the other way doesn't work. The message is clear in this case - let the Police sort it out - no vigilantes. Murder is more serious than theft.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

...What?

I mean, okay, it's not so great that the victim was apparently shooting to kill, if he was trying to stop the theft, a better target is the wheels of the pickup.

But, he didn't kill, and this was defense of property. "Big man?" Your statements are beyond my frame of reference. He was well within his rights to attempt a citizen's arrest because grand theft auto is a felony, and use of force is validated in a citizen's arrest.

Being facetious Byte. "Big Man" as in "what a little man for shooting at their backs." Grand Theft auto?? Probably a rickety old piece of shit trailer.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What we're getting into here is quibbling over strict liability, for damage caused by that use of force. As a citizen, he doesn't have the same privileges as police in regards to strict liability (IMO, a bunch of bullcrap). But technically, this should be a civil case, not a criminal case, because the man wasn't culpable, so this isn't going to fly. You'll see. Though he might end up paying the hospital bill for the thieves, depending on if they have good representation (insane, I know, but a likely outcome).

Yeah, plenty of holes in this entire story, but imagine, good old Fox News thought it was fit to print 'cuz gun owners will go "that's so full of crap! F*cking Obama!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I honestly would have expected the property owner to be charged with 'unlawful discharge of a firearm' or some such, while the thieves would be charged with their felony thieft. The former charge would remind the property owner when not to shoot, while the latter would remind the thieves when not to steal.

Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

So you're ok with this 82 yr old pressuming they were guilty and trying to kill them... nice.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:50 PM

Pizz,

You obviously didnt read the article I posted, nor listen to the "mother".

But when/if you do. Let me ask... do you agree with iher?

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Pizz,

You obviously didnt read the article I posted, nor listen to the "mother".

But when/if you do. Let me ask... do you agree with iher?

Okay, I'll read another article about something else...
Do I agree with the mother? No, of course not. Wulf, I'm questioning your ability to judge situations effectively, to weigh them and understand context.
Here's the big difference in the 2 stories, in this one;
"Published reports said the four thugs approached Wortham IV “with guns drawn.” Game over, start blasting. That's a pretty clear case of self defense.
In the other one 2 guys are allegedly trying to hook up the guy's trailer and leave. Yeah, they were thieves it turns out, they are guilty, but they didn't try and enter the old guy's home with guns drawn. They deserve jail time for theft - simple.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

KWICKO

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Since when did we start living in Britain?

Welcome to the slippery slope of socialism.

How is state ownership of industry related to this?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:12 PM

Someone trys to hurt me or mine, I shoot them.

Someone trys to steal from me or mine, I shoot them.

A question, if more people were like this... do you think that criminals would be more likely or more reluctant to try and hurt or steal from people?

For example: If you know that, when you are trying to hurt or steal from someone, they might kill you... is it worth the risk?

Even the most hardened criminals, even the most crazy, have a self preservation instinct.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:16 PM

"So you're ok with this 82 yr old pressuming they were guilty and trying to kill them... nice."

Hello,

I think this is a distortion of my opinion on the matter. I'm actually not 'okay' with him shooting at them, and stated so.
I'm even more not 'okay' with the victim of a crime paying a steeper penalty than the people he was trying to stop.

There's a lot here I'm not 'okay' with, okay?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

In the other one 2 guys are allegedly trying to hook up the guy's trailer and leave. Yeah, they were thieves it turns out, they are guilty, but they didn't try and enter the old guy's home with guns drawn. They deserve jail time for theft - simple.

As has no doubt been pointed out, that depends in large part on where the crime occurred, and whether they have the "Castle Doctrine" enacted into law or not. Here in Texas, you *CAN* legally shoot somebody for trespassing, vandalism, or simple theft of your property.

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but there ARE places where it's perfectly legal to blow someone's head off just for stealing your shit, and no need to claim "self defense" in such cases.

It seems where this guy lives, such law is not in effect. And even if it were, it would likely cost him thousands of dollars (I believe $30,000 is the average, if memory serves) to defend himself in court, even if he DIDN'T break the law.

So... will he be charged? Maybe. Will he be CONVICTED? Almost definitely not. Juries are VERY sympathetic to old folks defending themselves and their property from thugs.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:22 PM

It is a case of prosecutorial over reach. Plain and simple. Some fucktard prosecutor is trying to make a name for themselves, and this poor guy is going to have to deal with it.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:29 PM

Doesn't really matter the condition of the trailer.

Quote:
Motor vehicle theft, sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US, is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle, including an automobile, truck, bus, coach, motorcycle, snowmobile, trailer or any other motorized vehicle.

Used to be "grand theft auto" came from the definition for "grand theft" which was distinguished from petty theft by the worth of the item. the value to cut off grand theft varies by state, but in California it's $400. The trailer's probably still worth more than that, even if it's completely junked.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:38 PM

Tailor made for someone, Maybe FOX, also, perhaps they cooked it once over just a tad.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"So you're ok with this 82 yr old pressuming they were guilty and trying to kill them... nice."

Hello,

I think this is a distortion of my opinion on the matter. I'm actually not 'okay' with him shooting at them, and stated so.
I'm even more not 'okay' with the victim of a crime paying a steeper penalty than the people he was trying to stop.

There's a lot here I'm not 'okay' with, okay?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Sorry, this just seemed very glib and dismissive to me:

"I honestly would have expected the property owner to be charged with 'unlawful discharge of a firearm' or some such, while the thieves would be charged with their felony thieft. The former charge would remind the property owner when not to shoot, while the latter would remind the thieves when not to steal." When in fact he tried to kill them.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Doesn't really matter the condition of the trailer.

Quote:
Motor vehicle theft, sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US, is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle, including an automobile, truck, bus, coach, motorcycle, snowmobile, trailer or any other motorized vehicle.

Used to be "grand theft auto" came from the definition for "grand theft" which was distinguished from petty theft by the worth of the item. the value to cut off grand theft varies by state, but in California it's $400. The trailer's probably still worth more than that, even if it's completely junked.

The term "Grand" seemed ironical to me, like that somehow justified killing, 'well, it was grand after all."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

KWICKO

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It is a case of prosecutorial over reach. Plain and simple. Some fucktard prosecutor is trying to make a name for themselves, and this poor guy is going to have to deal with it.

I'm still having a hard time linking prosecutorial overreach with state ownership of the means of production. Are you backing away from your earlier claim that this was "socialism"?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:04 PM

"When in fact he tried to kill them."

Hello,

Now you are divining into the property owner's intentions, a failure of assumption identical to the one you spoke out against. If a person can take property without trying to steal it (a possibility you raised) then it's equally plausible for someone to shoot at someone without trying to kill them.

I suspect he wanted to stop them from stealing his property, and would have been well satisfied if they were merely wounded, surrendered, etc. I will be the first to speak out against shooting at people when there is no present threat of violence and I agree his actions were irresponsible and dangerous, but for him to be charged as extensively as he was while they were not yet charged at all seems like a terrible disparity.

Indeed, I feel that the thieves bear not only the weight of their theft, but also a portion of the weight for the attempt to stop their theft. It is they, and not the property owner, who should be dealt with most harshly. If you find this glib or dismissive, then I am sorry. The whole fruit of this matter stemmed from their lawlessness, and they deserve the greater portion of its yield. The property owner is not innocent, but neither does he seem as deeply guilty of lawbreaking as the thieves.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:06 PM

No, not backing away. The very idea of prosecutorial overreach is very socialistic. Those in authority, telling you how to live, when its "ok" to protect yourself...

What to think, what to eat, how to behave... same damn thing.

KIRKULES

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:15 PM

I'm a big supporter of gun rights, but I don't think it's a good idea to use deadly force for nonviolent crimes unless they occur in your home. In Florida we have the Castle Doctrine, but the only time you can use deadly force when not on your property is to prevent a violent felony from happening. You can come to another's aid with deadly force not just protect yourself. As far as fleeing violent felons, I'm all for shooting them in the back if they try and run when the tables are turned on them.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:24 PM

In the words of Jayne:
"I was aimin for his head"

Bullets aren't magic, you know, and most people are terrible shots, especially under stress, this guy probably cranked a couple off in the general direction of the truck, which is in fact a reckless and dangerous act and a complete violation of the basic rules of use of a firearm.
http://www.thegunzone.com/therules.html

Also, even IF the vehicle was headed towards him, if you got time to crank a couple off, you got time to get the hell out of the way, which is a smarter use of your time.

Since no innocents were harmed, and the one guy hit WAS one of the criminals, that's something which could be let go with a fine and temporary suspension of CCW, if any.

But he made the mistake of usurping the "divine right" (SNARK!) of the badge bearing horde, and so they're gonna make an example out of his ass cause if folks get the idea they're able to defend their own lives and property, well, they might start questioning what we NEED so many blue suited jackboots for...

The smart thing to do, what I woulda done, and have done, on one occasion, is to grab my own vehicle and discretely follow them while calling in the badge bearing horde on THEM, keeping the dispatcher advised of the vehicles location, speed and bearing till a couple marked cruisers can bring it to heel, dunno about most folk but fucked if they were gonna outrun even my heap of a car pulling a flatbed with a pickup, if they even noticed I was tailin em at all.

Problem is most folk don't think in a crisis, they just react, and a lot of em have poor judgement, but really I think this is more about "How dare you presume to defend yourself/your property" than the guy potentially endangering bystanders, which sets me also on the "this is bullshit" side of the matter.

Anthony, I hate to break this to you, but this is a COMMON response to home invasions where the perp is shot by the homeowner, all too often the police charge in, rough up and charge the homeowner while the perp skips on lesser charges, or even free and clear in exchange for testimony against the homeowner - to the point where everyone knows it, but no one says it out loud, that it's best to be very sure there's only ONE story left when the cops get there - YOURS, cause the perp has shuffled off the mortal coil.

And the reason for that is because folks have recently begun to question the role of police, and whether they are actually effective or even interested, in the social protection that is supposed to be their job - so they're gotten kind of touchy about that sort of thing.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:25 PM

Ah. No, not how I intended it. Grand theft is merely the justification for intervention that any citizen technically has under law. Not necessarily shooting to kill, which to me would fall under that strict liability.

I don't necessarily know that we know the guy WAS shooting to kill, could have been a wayward warning shot. Or he might not really have been thinking, he's 82 and he's being robbed, and that'll probably get your old man ticker and adrenaline going. Which is why I argued that I doubt he's culpable.

I note culpability isn't necessarily a factor in strict liability. I suppose it seems excessive to me to make this a criminal case when the thief DIDN'T die and was engaged in some already inherently risky, dangerous, and potentially reckless behaviour. I suppose because of the circumstances, I don't see that the victim necessarily ADDED to the liability here; it was a liability that was already present when the thief chose to commit this crime.

But then, that's part of the reason I often disagree with strict liability.

TRAVELER

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:35 PM

If they were no physical threat then you can't use physical violence. It may be different in other states. If they had kicked in his door, then the law would assume they had violent intent.
Rape is violence, so using a gun would probably be considered self-defence.

This is all preliminary. Wait until the DA's office goes over all the testimony.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:44 PM

I dont get this.

Someone steals say... my dead grandfathers purple heart medal, and as they see me coming downstairs to stop them, they run. I put a bullet in them, trying to stop them from getting away, AND returning a priceless family heirloom...

but, IM the bad guy?

Explain that to me.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:01 PM

Never forget, it was Ted Kennedy who wanted to make it the law for home owners to flee their own homes when faced with a home invasion.

Sounds like Colorado thought a lot of Dead Ted and his kookie idea.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:26 PM

?

KWICKO

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, not backing away. The very idea of prosecutorial overreach is very socialistic. Those in authority, telling you how to live, when its "ok" to protect yourself...

What to think, what to eat, how to behave... same damn thing.

Ah, I see. In WulfieWorld™, only socialists are subject to an authoritarian streak.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Never forget, it was Ted Kennedy who wanted to make it the law for home owners to flee their own homes when faced with a home invasion.

Cites? I only ask because I've never heard of this, and a quick Google search turns up no info.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:49 PM

A perusal online shows that Colorado does have a Castle Doctrine in place, but it's pretty weak, and applies ONLY to intruders within the home or dwelling.

Sorry, Wulfie, but if you don't like it, lobby to change the law.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:28 PM

"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

It *IS* rather disquieting to see a man willing to KILL for set of old wheels. Anger I can understand, even a beating, but death?
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.

The laughing Chrisisall

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer
It *IS* rather disquieting to see a man willing to KILL for set of old wheels. Anger I can understand, even a beating, but death?
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.

The laughing Chrisisall

I don't understand how your justice system works - surely 'attempted first degree murder' would be that you plotted the death of someone didn't succeed.

I worry about people discharging firearms - especially in populated places. It doesn't say what sort of location it was, but surely firing after someone might result in an innocent bystander being killed...and for the sake of a trailer???

I think the thieves should be charged with theft and the man should be charged with something - irresponsible use of a firearm? causing grevious bodily harm. I know that over here you get a lot of suspended sentences if there is 'just cause'.

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I don't understand how your justice system works

Welcome to the party, pal!
-John McCalne

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.

Chris, the guy was 82 years old and emotionally frazzled - he prolly *WAS* aimin at the tires!

A pistol isn't a magic wand, you know, and outside of a couple yards most people can't hit a goddamn thing reliably - too much hollywood in the belief that an old geezer is gonna make a shot like that at all, much less under stress, I mean, shit, he's lucky to have hit the bloody TRUCK.

Still, you are responsible for where your bullets go, unless (seemingly) you're wearing blue...

I am still watchin this mess in detroit with a CCW holder who's stray round clipped someones gramma, matter of fact...
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100708/METRO01/7080374/1410/METRO01/H
earing-delayed-until-Aug.-9-in-stray-bullet-death
Ed Bell, the guy who fired the shot, is gonna get raked over the coals by the court, and when that happens....

If the officer who's negligent discharge killed Aiyana Jones does not get the same treatment, some shit is gonna hit the fan bigtime around here - especially since the Police Union bought off both major papers to suppress the story, note how fast it DISAPPEARED, right after they chased down, shot and captured the guys carrying the video of them desperately plotting a coverup ?

For "reckless driving", mind you - and yet, no case exists, and no one has any clue where the guy they took into custody is cause other than a few photos of the incident, there's no evidence it even happened.

Anyhow, that's a stickin point with me, once you pull the trigger, YOU are responsible for where your bullets go, not the gun, not society, not shit happens, not even the bad guys... YOU.

On that, I will not budge, not for no one.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
once you pull the trigger, YOU are responsible for where your bullets go, not the gun, not society, not shit happens, not even the bad guys... YOU.

On that, I will not budge, not for no one.

Once again, I agree on every particular point.

If you're not a Martin Riggs, don't try to shoot like one.

The laughing Chrisisall

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Someone trys to hurt me or mine, I shoot them.

Someone trys to steal from me or mine, I shoot them.

I think that's your dream scenario, I think you actually hope it happens. Some bad guys, the more the better, the blacker the better, try and do something that transgresses one of Wulf's Laws so you can give yourself righteous permission to kill them.
So how young would you kill? For how little? You haven't actually thought about that, huh? Seriously, you see someone trying to steal a bike out of your garage - shoot to kill?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, July 9, 2010 12:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"When in fact he tried to kill them."

Hello,

Now you are divining into the property owner's intentions, a failure of assumption identical to the one you spoke out against. If a person can take property without trying to steal it (a possibility you raised) then it's equally plausible for someone to shoot at someone without trying to kill them.

I suspect he wanted to stop them from stealing his property, and would have been well satisfied if they were merely wounded, surrendered, etc. I will be the first to speak out against shooting at people when there is no present threat of violence and I agree his actions were irresponsible and dangerous, but for him to be charged as extensively as he was while they were not yet charged at all seems like a terrible disparity.

Indeed, I feel that the thieves bear not only the weight of their theft, but also a portion of the weight for the attempt to stop their theft. It is they, and not the property owner, who should be dealt with most harshly. If you find this glib or dismissive, then I am sorry. The whole fruit of this matter stemmed from their lawlessness, and they deserve the greater portion of its yield. The property owner is not innocent, but neither does he seem as deeply guilty of lawbreaking as the thieves.

.

It's true Anthony that I presumed, but making a mistake about whether they were stealing or not has a roll back option, at worst it has monetary loss. Making a mistake with a gun doesn't. "Damn, I thought they were stealing... but instead I've killed one of them..."

I wouldn't worry too much about these guys getting prosecuted, that will happen. Citizens prosecuting and judging and passing sentence with firearms really needs to be looked to promptly.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

KWICKO

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer
It *IS* rather disquieting to see a man willing to KILL for set of old wheels. Anger I can understand, even a beating, but death?
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.

The laughing Chrisisall

Thing is, as Frem was trying to point out earlier, he MAY HAVE BEEN trying to shoot out the tires. Or the engine of their car or truck. He might not have been shooting to kill (haven't heard his side of the story; he may have been aiming at their heads...).

I had my car stolen a couple years back, and if I'd heard the buggers doing it, I'd have put a couple rounds through the engine block and held the pukes at gunpoint 'til the police arrived. I can replace an engine a whole lot cheaper than the grief I'd take for shooting some kid, even if I did think he so richly deserved it.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

KWICKO

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

Did Schweitzer recognize germs and bacteria as "life"? If so, how did he reconcile destroying bacteria to save human life? How does one reconcile destroying plant life or animal life in order to eat? Is mankind - even the most vegan among us - inherently evil?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is mankind - even the most vegan among us - inherently evil?

We are a disease, the Matrix described it in detail, Mike.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I don't understand how your justice system works
Welcome to the party, pal!
-John McCalne

The laughing Chrisisall

What did I tell you about that?

BAM! This little piggy went to market...

Keep talkin'; I can eat bacon all night long!

GEEZER

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

Keep reading. Farther down is this.

"Wallace did not want to talk on camera, but when we asked him if the two men threatened him he said, "They almost ran me over.""

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:32 AM

"I'd have put a couple rounds through the engine block"

Hello,

What on Earth are you carrying? I don't think I have a single weapon in the whole house that could do this.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

What did I tell you about that?

BAM! This little piggy went to market...

Quit being part of the f***ing problem...!

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Keep reading. Farther down is this.

"Wallace did not want to talk on camera, but when we asked him if the two men threatened him he said, "They almost ran me over.""

So, uh, he *STEPPED IN FRONT* of the moving vehicle???
Very *MOVIE* like.

The laughing Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:55 AM

Ask him, not me.

My answer would be Human life first, if it's a definitely one must die scenario, but then higher lifeforms first, as in those with consciousness. Also, those essential or beneficial to the survival of others. Mosquitoes, for example, are detrimental to our survival, and are not a tremendously intelligent or advanced life form, and there is no way that you will ever damage the species, but you might save a lot of humans by pushing it back to the swamp.

GEEZER

Friday, July 9, 2010 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, uh, he *STEPPED IN FRONT* of the moving vehicle???

So, uh, exactly where in the article was that information?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, uh, he *STEPPED IN FRONT* of the moving vehicle???

So, uh, exactly where in the article was that information?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Dork, "he looked out his window"...

From the STREET??????

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I'd have put a couple rounds through the engine block"

Hello,

What on Earth are you carrying? I don't think I have a single weapon in the whole house that could do this.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Romanian PSL, 7.62x54r 200gr FMJ boattail, 2700fps (It's a "Poor Man's Dragunov", or so they say. Good accuracy out to 600yds.

As an added bonus, I get to run the same ammo through my trusty old bolt-action Mosin-Nagant (the one with the 14" side-folding "spike" bayonet on it). For a $79 rifle, it has amazingly good accuracy at 100yds on iron sights. Kicks like a goddam mule on crack, though. The PSL uses most of the recoil to operate its gas system, while the Nagant shoves it all straight through the bolt, through the METAL shoulder plate, and into your muscle.

Neither of those are "home defense" weapons. The danger is, they'll shoot through your house, through your neighbor's house, and through his neighbor's house. They are for hunting or target practice. I don't hunt, so targets is all I'm killing with 'em... For the house, I prefer a shotgun, or my trusty nightstand weapon, a 9mm with soft lead hollowpoints or frangible "powdered metal" rounds. They go in, but they don't come out!

You've got an SKS, right? That should put a round into a four-banger good enough to stop it, I should think.

ANTHONYT

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:30 AM

Hello,

Ah, the Noisy Nagant. Lovely, Brutish, Awful thing. The PSL looks lovely and much more forgiving. I do believe the 7.62x54R would make short work of my KIA's engine block. I'm not entirely sure about the 7.62x39. I wouldn't bet my soul on it.

I do have that SKS, though it gave me such a fright I'm planning to get rid of it. I'm such an old fashioned guy, and very squeamish about weapon malfunctions. The only thing that worries me more than a weapon not firing when I pull the trigger is a weapon that fires more than I want it to.

I suppose I'm most likely to confront an intruder with either my double-barrel stagecoach 12 gauge loaded with #6 shot or my single-action Peacemaker style revolver loaded with .38 specials. They are the two guns I tend to keep loaded in the house. I think if I get another rifle, I'll try to find one chambered in .38/.357 so I can use the same ammo in both the revolver and the rifle. I keep missing my opportunity to get the pump-action Taurus, which looks like a perfect mate to my Gaucho. Every time I get enough money together, they discontinue the line.

Thinking on it, my tastes in firearms are not particularly practical for either home defense or insurrection. Most of my stuff is technology that's over a century out of date.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:40 AM

Ooo, gun p0rn!

What didja pay for that thing, btw ?

Hell with the block, I'd just aim Forquet at the road underneath it and cut loose.

You wouldn't be gettin far on four flats, and the lighter shot I use is no significant danger at any range once it's pogo'd off the tarmac.

Of course, if ya stole MY car I'd just laugh at you, it'd prolly come back with a sympathy note!

-Frem
ETA: Anthony, you might consider a Taurus Judge - for your expressed intended use, it's probably the best of both worlds.
http://www.taurususa.com/video-theJudge.cfm

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

Keep reading. Farther down is this.

"Wallace did not want to talk on camera, but when we asked him if the two men threatened him he said, "They almost ran me over.""

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I did read that part, Geezer. Also saw the first part that seems to be at odds with that: "... he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Maybe he time shifted from "looking out his window" and when they "almost ran him over?" I chalked it up to the news source and bad reporting or the old guy being old and pissed and not remembering.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

KWICKO

Friday, July 9, 2010 3:03 AM

Frem: $650. For the price, it's sweet. It's no Dragunov, but I haven't seen one of those go for under $9000 recently, and that's well out of my price range for a boomstick! If I were looking to blow that kind of money on something that's not really practical, I'd pony up for a Barrett 50-cal.

But yeah, I'm glad I waited, because before the '08 election, the PSL was going for $850 and up.

I *DO* still need a Saiga12, though. They are very sweet. Who knew the AK platform could have so many uses?

KWICKO

Friday, July 9, 2010 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

Keep reading. Farther down is this.

"Wallace did not want to talk on camera, but when we asked him if the two men threatened him he said, "They almost ran me over.""

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I did read that part, Geezer. Also saw the first part that seems to be at odds with that: "... he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Maybe he time shifted from "looking out his window" and when they "almost ran him over?" I chalked it up to the news source and bad reporting or the old guy being old and pissed and not remembering.

I'm wondering if he looked out the window, then ran out with his gun, yelling at them, at which point they tried to bolt, nearly running him down. Spin it that way to a jury - or a grand jury - and he won't get indicted, much less convicted.

'Course, it might help if the ballistics matches that scenario!

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

KWICKO

Friday, July 9, 2010 3:27 AM

Quote:

Ah, the Noisy Nagant. Lovely, Brutish, Awful thing. The PSL looks lovely and much more forgiving. I do believe the 7.62x54R would make short work of my KIA's engine block. I'm not entirely sure about the 7.62x39. I wouldn't bet my soul on it.

I can't tell if that was intentionally hilarious, or unintentionally hilarious. The part about your Kia, and betting your soul on it. As in, your "Soul"... by Kia.

And yeah, the Nagant *IS* a beast. It beats the living shit out of me; it's hard to get ten rounds through it, and you'll feel that in your shoulder for a couple days. The hell of it is, this is the same rifle they handed these 95-pound Russian sniperskiya girls in WWII! It's humbling. This is what our own MikeZWilliamson had to say about it in his list of "Ten Manliest Guns":

Quote:

#9: Mosin-Nagant M44
Speaking of guns without safeties, here's the Mosin-Nagant M44 Carbine from Russia. The Mosin was used by the Russians against the Finns, the Finns against the Russians, the Estonians against the Russians, the Russians against the Russians, and the Russians against the Germans. It does, in fact, have a safety, but it's quite hard to engage. But this is not a complaint one would ever voice in the Red Army. Your officer would reply, "Safety? Safety? Is gun! Meant to kill! No warrior should know he has safety on gun, because he should be killing enemies of homeland! Safety make loud click to aid enemy in locating warriors! No safety!" while pounding his fist on the table.

And the Mosin can kill enemies of homeland. The muzzle blast will vaporize green growth within a few feet of the muzzle, and even if you miss, the enemy will be reduced to shouting "WHAT?" to communicate. You'll need a recoil pad or shooting jacket. Ordinarily, this might be considered unmanly, but this rifle has a short stock for using while wearing several layers of wool for a Russian winter. It is acceptable to wear padding to fire a Mosin.

Of course, there are also M38, 91/30 and other variations of Mosin-Nagant and all are cool. All, also (except the M38), come with a bayonet. Russian doctrine held that the bayonet was mounted except while traveling in a vehicle, because the Russians understood that an empty rifle could still be a pointy stick—a Viking spear. The Russians loved to spear Turks. So, coincidentally, did the Vikings. This rifle sounds better all the time, doesn't it? The Finns used the Mosin as a sniper rifle during the Winter War, and their greatest Sniper was Simo Häyhä, who had 500 confirmed kills in 100 days. This is a man the Finns describe as "modest" and "self-effacing." It's a good thing the Russians didn't run into a Finn who was proud and arrogant. They'd have been wiped out.

It fires a 7.62X54R (for "Rimmed") cartridge, about as powerful as .30-06, and holds the distinction of being in service from 1891 to the present, longer than any other military cartridge. It is still used in Dragunovs, PKMs and other Russian weapons. It's cheap in quantity. So are the rifles, because they were built for (all variations) over 70 years, by Russia, Finland, Poland, Romania, even the US. As I write this, arsenal-new M44s are $55 to $200. At that price, you should have several, so any guests you have during the Collapse can be outfitted as they receive Enlightenment. Then they can rape, kill, sack and loot with the rest of the men who secure a new Dark Ages to hasten the new renaissance. It will be a manly duty.

And yes, at the range, when the guy in the next stall fires the Nagant, you can feel the concussion in the air in YOUR stall! And that four-foot fireball at the nasty end of the barrel is a sight to behold. And no, I've never figured out how to use the "safety", or even where to find it. On this rifle, "safety" means you don't load it, don't even put ammunition in the same room as it, and NEVER put your finger near the trigger 'til you've acquired your target. The trigger has a pull of about 0.000001 ounce. Breath

MINCINGBEAST

Friday, July 9, 2010 3:43 AM

Sometimes the law privileges the use of deadly force. Defense of property isn't one of these times. Mr. Wallace fired at two men while they were taking his property--the words "while they were taking his property" don't raise a defense on these facts.

The attempted murder charges, however, may be difficult to prove. The prosecution will have to demonstrate that Mr. Wallace fired with the specific intent to kill the thieves. Assault charges would be much easier to prove.

The thieves have not been charged with anything at this point, but that is no guarantee that they won't be. I can't imagine them not being charged, considering that one of them has confessed. Its a freebie. DA's love freebies.

So, everyone involved in this scenario is guilty of something.

BYTEMITE

Friday, July 9, 2010 5:05 AM

Quote:
Did Schweitzer recognize germs and bacteria as "life"? If so, how did he reconcile destroying bacteria to save human life? How does one reconcile destroying plant life or animal life in order to eat? Is mankind - even the most vegan among us - inherently evil?

I actually wrote something about that recently in a discussion about Jedi and the Force. God, I'm a fucking nerd.

MINCINGBEAST

Friday, July 9, 2010 7:34 AM

The moral of this story is that 82 year old men shoudlnt have guns, or trailers.

GEEZER

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"he looked out his window"...

From the STREET??????

A bit of research finds Robert Wallace's address as 3749 Sheridan, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. http://weblink.ci.wheatridge.co.us/weblink8/0/doc/132412/Page1.aspx

Google Earth this address and you'll find a small house with a paved lot were a trailer is parked on one side and a driveway on the other.

Look out the window, step out the door, and you're on pavement where folks trying to steal your trailer could easily try to run you over, without you ever being in THE STREET.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 9, 2010 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"he looked out his window"...

From the STREET??????

A bit of research finds Robert Wallace's address as 3749 Sheridan, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. http://weblink.ci.wheatridge.co.us/weblink8/0/doc/132412/Page1.aspx

Google Earth this address and you'll find a small house with a paved lot were a trailer is parked on one side and a driveway on the other.

Look out the window, step out the door, and you're on pavement where folks trying to steal your trailer could easily try to run you over, without you ever being in THE STREET.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I stand corrected, sir!

The laughing Chrisisall

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, February 20, 2023 4:42 AM

Democrats Discover Crime Is Bad

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QooYEKe7rqE/