If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Gun-Snatching Hero who saves four other people is put under arrest for parole violation   (sfgate.com) divider line 27
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

1319 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2001 at 1:18 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2001-08-19 02:37:40 AM
"a possible parole violation -- handling the gun. ..."

This is bullshiat ,defending your self by grabbing a gun
he should get a jury trail and prevail

also irst,fay ost,pay
the ig,pay-atin,lay is mightier than the fark filter
 
2001-08-19 02:39:20 AM
Local pigs do the right thing.

State pigs override local pigs.

Fucking pigs.

At least the guy will be a hero in jail.
 
2001-08-19 02:52:59 AM
First that "hacker" now this! DO NOT DO THE RIGHT THING! Its an age old rule. The right thing gets your butt tossed in jail and then you're gonna get your butt tossed in jail. ;) Take a hint people.
 
2001-08-19 03:32:23 AM
Ahhhh...Our wonderful grubberment in action. We have to obey the laws...even if the laws are (in fact) ignorant laws made by ignorant politicians who have no clue about what goes on in the real world. Lawmakers are so far removed from normal society that they cannot possibly understand how the rest of us live. These people don't do their own shopping, driving, cleaning or cooking, They don't even raise their own damned children. Why would we allow these people to make laws about our lives when they cannot comprehend the kind of lives we lead?
 
2001-08-19 03:51:07 AM
Geez,this guy saves a woman and two young children,plus his friends life,expresses regret that people had to die even,and gets tossed in jail?What you said,Soupgoblin,about politicians being out of touch.This guy should get a medal.
 
2001-08-19 08:53:36 AM
<grabs oil, heads for fire>

Uh... I jest read the article. What have we: two dead guys, allegedly robbers. Two live guys, who admit to shooting them. Miscellaneous friends and family who were covered by a sheet at the time. And two guns, allegedly having belonged to the robbers.
Thing is, the robbers aren't around anymore to give their side of the story, are they?
Lock the guys up until the poilce have found out what actually did go on in that loft? I should say so - if it was something completely other, we wouldn't want them shifting evidence in the meantime, would we?

Two things that draw my attention:
One: not only shot, but shot dead. Now, I don't get to shoot much, but what are the chances of shooting at someone, scoring a hit, and killing them, rather than just winging them?
Two: "drug conviction". Phewey. 75% chance he shouldn't have been on probation in the first place.

All in all: Very biased "FTP" article. Definitely wouldn't want to base any decision on it.
 
2001-08-19 12:45:43 PM
Laberdasher, you do make a good point about it being possible that the story didn't actually go as the survivors tell it. However, drug conviction could mean something as little as he got caught smoking a joint, you doin't have to automatically assume that the drug conviction means he is a terrible person who deserves to be jailed forever.
 
2001-08-19 01:40:24 PM
Thoguh - uh, yeah.

"Phewey. 75% chance he shouldn't have been on probation in the first place." meant to mean "75% chance he never posed any kind of threat to society anyway and thus never should have been put away in the first place." Probably higher. Anyone have any statistics as to what percentage of drug convictions are "posession with intent to get high?"

Ehehe... I just re-read that. You understood it as "he shouldn't have gotten out of jail to go on probation". Urg... simple typo checking doesn't do it sometimes - must implement semantics parsing...
I'm with the libertarians on the drug issue ... but I do wonder what some of the marketing campaigns will look like...
"Buy Herion from H+(R) - only the best! (H+ is a subdivision of Proctor and Gamble)"
 
2001-08-19 01:49:07 PM
I'm with the libertarians on the drug issue ...


Yea, they are idiots too... what can I say??? DUH
 
2001-08-19 03:27:23 PM
LabberDasher:
where did you see probation...? thisman is on Parole..Huge difference..There is NO such thing as "self defense" for a parolee, I am not saying there should'nt be, because there should be. Handling a gun for a parolee Is a violation, although in this case it should not be, it is...

and your drug conviction B.S. doesn't hold water...

Get over it..!
 
2001-08-19 03:28:23 PM
"posession with intent to get high?"

IS ILLEGAL.... hahahahahahahahah;)
 
2001-08-19 03:41:55 PM
At first, I thought that the cops where wrong for arresting him, but later down the story, it then also states that he used the gun to shoot somebody (abit it was one of the attackers). They are just taken normal steps. Just about anybody else who said they killed somebody in "self defense" is also arrested until it is proven that they killed in self defense.
 
2001-08-19 03:44:13 PM
It helps to "actually read" the article huh?

far too many people are more interested in "posting" than actualy getting the facts..;)
my hat is off to you Kotton, you paid attention!!!

Hurrah!!!
 
2001-08-19 03:54:11 PM
Ham Salad - what "drug conviction B.S.". In what way?

"Possession with intent to get high" is indeed illegal. What is your opinion? Should it be?

Probation: let out early with close checking on how he's doing. Probation: not getting locked up in the first place with close checking on how he's doing. Right. 75% chance he simply got caught with a toke for the fourth time, did some time, got out. Big difference.

Kotton - right. Just journalism at it's finest, successfully getting people to want to hand out the medals before they even establish the facts of the case.
 
2001-08-19 03:55:22 PM
Read "parole" for first instance of "probation". Ya, you guessed it.
 
2001-08-19 04:38:29 PM
"Possession with intent to get high" is indeed illegal. What is your opinion? Should it be?"

opinions don't count for shiat! the fact is that
IT IS ILLEGAL

that, my friends will never change.
 
2001-08-19 04:42:55 PM
new law, anyone who shoots someone with a gun gets their face ripped off with a chainsaw.
 
2001-08-19 04:47:36 PM
Don't have to tell me twice.....;)
 
2001-08-19 04:49:21 PM
L-Dasher:::
Read "parole" for first instance of "probation". Ya, you guessed it.


WHATS YOUR POINT???
 
2001-08-19 04:59:58 PM
Man, he shot a guy in the head and was arrested. This is not ASININE. Read the article...
 
2001-08-19 05:22:47 PM
Augie Ben Doggie - ...unless of course you are interested in ethics. "In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor." My word. It must be morally wrong then.

Ham Salad - oh, sorry. Was I using sentences that were too long? I posted a comment. Thoguh alerted me to the fact that one point of what I wrote would probably be misunderstood. I clarified on that point.
Clear enough for you? Nice short sencences. Not one single comma.
 
2001-08-19 05:29:39 PM
that's what I thought, mindless dribble...

thanks
 
2001-08-19 05:46:53 PM
who gives a shiat about Denver and some farking vacuum cleaner? what does that have to do with this article?
 
2001-08-19 05:50:34 PM
so the people should CHANGE the law.. I am fine with that. the laws regarding pot and other so-called drugs are never going to be lifted.. POT WILL NEVER BE LEGAL (in US)
 
2001-08-19 05:52:18 PM
"Nice short sencences. Not one single comma."

LOL, I bet he understands now.
 
2001-08-19 05:59:24 PM
ROFL.....
 
2001-08-19 09:32:25 PM
So, if instead of shooting them, would the guy have still violated his parole if he'd pistol whipped the jerk and then shoved the gun up the guys ass? Or would that be considered concealing evidence? This is a farked up situation.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report