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.

(SacBee)   Man who fired multiple times into an occupied car, killing a teenage girl, claims he was "firing to scare"   (sacbee.com) divider line 214
    More: Followup, teens  
•       •       •

9041 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2014 at 9:20 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-19 01:19:44 AM
Has anyone mentioned yet that warning shots are bullshiat? Because I think that bears repeating.

/don't take the gun out of its holster if you aren't going to use it
//don't put your finger on the trigger unless you're going to shoot
///don't shoot at anyone for any reason other than to kill them
 
2014-02-19 01:24:12 AM

CommonName2: Also, how could he try to scare them (the terrorism part) AND plan to kill them? Isn't that an "either-or" situation?


So you're saying that if a terrorist sets off a bomb and the bomb kills people, it isn't terrorism because he killed them instead of just scaring them?


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
/farking logic.  How does it work?
 
2014-02-19 01:36:39 AM

AirForceVet: As a former kid who egged some houses, killing the eggers isn't the answer. Just catch them and get them to clean up the house.


One of my dad's sailing buddies was a high school principal, a Mormon with a scad of teenage kids in varsity sports, he has a number of stories. I suppose it's good he's safely retired.

\Ah got eggs too.
\\And the hose.
\\\Piss me off I'll call your parents at 3am
 
2014-02-19 01:38:04 AM
He was fully within his constitutional right to defend himself. Non-story.
 
2014-02-19 01:51:53 AM

MechaPyx: Lcpl_Dunno: MechaPyx:

Yeah but you get a description/license plate number and let the cops deal with it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA .... HAHAHAHA ... whew ... good one.

They're kids TP'ing your stuff(in a middle class neighborhood).

What would you suggest? Going all Rambo on them like this guy did?


As an alternate to what you suggested the first time can I suggest:

kinialohaguy.files.wordpress.com

At least this way there will be actual effects at the end that aren't written on paper and ignored.
 
2014-02-19 01:53:50 AM
Charged with murder = black people's problems.


If we were driving a BMW, white, and on his way to the gym in 26 minutes.....
 
2014-02-19 01:54:00 AM

Voiceofreason01: Which is EXACTLY why firing warning shots is a felony.


Yup.
 
2014-02-19 02:02:21 AM

Carousel Beast: None, because Farkers understand warning shots = stupid. Just like we understand that hardinparamedic = stupid not to mention a pathetic little partisan stooge.


Coming from you, that's an ironic and sad comment.
 
2014-02-19 02:04:01 AM
He should have just said that they were playing load music and he thought they were pulling a gun. No wait, he's black, so won't get away with that.
 
2014-02-19 02:09:07 AM

Voiceofreason01: Which is EXACTLY why firing warning shots is a felony.


They weren't even proper warning shots, there not being any reasonable threat to life/limb.  Though, assuming he actually got the right kids who were doing the vandalism, I wonder what the survivors think about the consequences of their 'harmless fun'.

Oh_Enough_Already: If Zimmerman was black, we'd have never ever heard of him.


For that matter, if he looked 'Mexican' we'd have never heard of him either.
 
2014-02-19 02:12:34 AM

Lcpl_Dunno: At least this way there will be actual effects at the end that aren't written on paper and ignored.


Yeah. One man is going to jail for the rest of his life, and another person is dead.

Oh, those rascals sure learned their lesson this time!

www.troll.me
 
2014-02-19 02:20:24 AM

JuggleGeek: CommonName2: Also, how could he try to scare them (the terrorism part) AND plan to kill them? Isn't that an "either-or" situation?

So you're saying that if a terrorist sets off a bomb and the bomb kills people, it isn't terrorism because he killed them instead of just scaring them?

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 200x206]
/farking logic.  How does it work?



Apparently that logic thing isn't working for you.  Terrorism is roughly defined as 'committing violent acts with the goal of enacting political change by it'.

Scenario 1:  I set off a bomb to kill my wife and her lover; NOT terrorism, just plain old murder
Scenario 2:  I set off a bomb to kill a governor who supports policy X which I absolutely hate, with the goal of intimidating others to not vote/support policy X either. This would be terrorism AND murder.  I don't need to rigidly define the people I'm tryng to intimidate.

Given that this guy's hoped policy change was along the lines of 'don't vandalize my property anymore', I prefer to not water down the terrorism charge by applying it to him.  Save it for 'actual' terrorists that are committing crimes/violent acts because they want to be in charge of the government.
 
2014-02-19 02:24:19 AM

Firethorn: Terrorism is roughly defined as 'committing violent acts with the goal of enacting political change by it'.


Wow.

That's incredibly pedantic.

img.fark.net

The use of the word terrorism in legal text is a little different than the use of the word in colloquial conversation. Who'da thunk it.
 
2014-02-19 02:27:44 AM

hardinparamedic: Lcpl_Dunno: At least this way there will be actual effects at the end that aren't written on paper and ignored.

Yeah. One man is going to jail for the rest of his life, and another person is dead.

Oh, those rascals sure learned their lesson this time!

[www.troll.me image 551x574]


You have ... no idea what the hell you're talking about do you? I said reporting this to the police was stupid. That idiot suggested that the only other method of resolving the issue was going on a shooting spree. I suggested that beating ones head against the wall was better than reporting it to the police because at least beating your head against the wall does something.

By anyone's calculations ... you're an idiot.
 
2014-02-19 02:42:50 AM

taurusowner: Every responsible gun owner should know that you only shoot to stop an immediate threat*.

*State law determining whether that threat includes threat to others, includes sexual assault,

black kids playing loud music, etc.
 
2014-02-19 02:46:15 AM
I want the kids charged to the fullest extent too.
 
2014-02-19 02:46:38 AM

Lcpl_Dunno: hardinparamedic: Lcpl_Dunno: At least this way there will be actual effects at the end that aren't written on paper and ignored.

Yeah. One man is going to jail for the rest of his life, and another person is dead.

Oh, those rascals sure learned their lesson this time!

[www.troll.me image 551x574]

You have ... no idea what the hell you're talking about do you? I said reporting this to the police was stupid. That idiot suggested that the only other method of resolving the issue was going on a shooting spree. I suggested that beating ones head against the wall was better than reporting it to the police because at least beating your head against the wall does something.

By anyone's calculations ... you're an idiot.



What part of reporting vandalism and trespassing to the police is stupid? Last time I checked those things were against the law and it's the police's job to check into such things. Sure, in this case it's kids playing a prank but it's still vandalism. Eggs can destroy the paint job on a car. By reporting it you're at least creating a history of events that could prove useful later and who knows, maybe some bored cop cruising around happens to spot the vehicle you reported and stops them.

Yeah, sometimes cops can be absolutely useless but what's the alternative here?
 
2014-02-19 03:01:06 AM

LordJiro: Oh_Enough_Already: TuteTibiImperes: No one is trying to make it a racial issue.  It's just a 'dumbass who shouldn't have owned a gun' story.

That's the point. They never are. But they're MADE racial issues by the hucksters and race-baiters who can profit off of sowing division. If Zimmerman was black, we'd have never ever heard of him.

If this moron was white it would be all anybody was talking about for a year. Meanwhile, the far far far far far more common black on white murders are NEVER a "racial issue" even when they unequivocally are.

Funny thing, that.

How many of those 'Black on white' murders end up with the perpetrator caught, then let go with a slap on the wrist?


It's a silly discussion. Interracial murder is quite rare, and for that reason, often headline-fuel.
The reality in America is that blacks murder blacks, whites murder whites, latinos murder latinos. That's the vast statistical preponderance.
In fact, in the vanishingly unlikely event that any Farker reading this is murdered, the odds are overwhelming that your killer will be someone known to you.
 
2014-02-19 03:30:31 AM

UrinalPooper: Is there any reason killing the ones who are wrecking someone's vehicle would be wrong?


Pretty sure you're a troll, but is there any reason why it would be RIGHT?

Eggs, mayo, and toilet paper.  Oh noes.  At the absolute worst it would necessitate getting the car repainted; if he knows who the kids are, he can go to court to have their families cover the cost of the repainting.

No reasonable person would consider it grounds for murder.
 
2014-02-19 03:32:56 AM

hardinparamedic: The use of the word terrorism in legal text is a little different than the use of the word in colloquial conversation. Who'da thunk it.


Oh, I understand that.  I stand by my opinion that the charge should be reserved for *serious* terrorists, because I see the threat levels as being different.

hardinparamedic: That's incredibly pedantic.


Looks pretty close for a definition I wrote off the top of my head.  What's so pedantic about it?

I insist on the difference so much because I don't like the idea of 'legal' language differing from 'plain' language too much.  I acknowledge that it does differ, but I think they need to be reigned in.
 
2014-02-19 03:35:31 AM

jso2897: In fact, in the vanishingly unlikely event that any Farker reading this is murdered, the odds are overwhelming that your killer will be someone known to you.


And roughly the same skin color as well.

Of course, the fact that you're most likely to be murdered by 'family' helps with this little statistic...
 
2014-02-19 03:50:01 AM
JUICY STORY DAWG
 
2014-02-19 03:50:07 AM

Lcpl_Dunno: You have ... no idea what the hell you're talking about do you? I said reporting this to the police was stupid. That idiot suggested that the only other method of resolving the issue was going on a shooting spree. I suggested that beating ones head against the wall was better than reporting it to the police because at least beating your head against the wall does something.


Really? Because based on your post, it looks like you're trying to make excuses for a teenager getting shot over throwing something that could have been washed off by a water hose.
 
2014-02-19 03:52:13 AM
Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'
 
2014-02-19 03:58:14 AM

Oh_Enough_Already: That's the point. They never are. But they're MADE racial issues by the hucksters and race-baiters who can profit off of sowing division. If Zimmerman was black, we'd have never ever heard of him.

Meanwhile, the far far far far far more common black on white murders are NEVER a "racial issue" even when they unequivocally are.



Your confusion is arising from the fact that you're completely missing the actual point.

In both the Zimmerman case and the more recent Jordan Davis murder, the racial aspect of the case has virtually nothing to do with whether Zimmerman or Dunn themselves were blatantly racist or whether their murders were racially motivated, and everything to do with the fact that we are codifying their racial bias into the actual law.

Both Zimmerman and Dunn shot unarmed black kids because they felt "threatened" and were not convicted of their murders because the jury found it reasonable that they felt threatened.  In stand-your-ground cases, like the Zimmerman case you talk about, it is overwhelmingly the case that white people who shoot black people are unlikely to be convicted, while black people who shoot whites WILL be.  In other words, the courts have taken Dunn's feelings of racial bias that cause him to feel threatened by a black kid playing loud music and elevated it to a legitimate legal defense while the reverse situation is not considered legitimate.

THAT is why those cases get so much attention.  Not because Zimmerman is racist, but because the LAW is.
 
2014-02-19 04:13:34 AM

Gawdzila: THAT is why those cases get so much attention. Not because Zimmerman is racist, but because the LAW is.


DING DING DING.
 
2014-02-19 04:46:26 AM

Gawdzila: In stand-your-ground cases, like the Zimmerman case...


Ummm... fail.
 
2014-02-19 05:30:22 AM

MechaPyx: Lcpl_Dunno: MechaPyx:

Yeah but you get a description/license plate number and let the cops deal with it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA .... HAHAHAHA ... whew ... good one.

They're kids TP'ing your stuff(in a middle class neighborhood).

What would you suggest? Going all Rambo on them like this guy did?


What's the likelihood of them repeating the offence after going Rambo? Mission accomplished.
 
2014-02-19 05:40:41 AM

Gawdzila: Both Zimmerman and Dunn shot unarmed black kids because they felt "threatened" and were not convicted of their murders because the jury found it reasonable that they felt threatened.  In stand-your-ground cases, like the Zimmerman case you talk about, it is overwhelmingly the case that white people who shoot black people are unlikely to be convicted, while black people who shoot whites WILL be.  In other words, the courts have taken Dunn's feelings of racial bias that cause him to feel threatened by a black kid playing loud music and elevated it to a legitimate legal defense while the reverse situation is not considered legitimate.


I don't mean to harsh the roll you're on, but neither case found that.
 
2014-02-19 05:46:27 AM

taurusowner: Voiceofreason01: Which is EXACTLY why firing warning shots is a felony.

This.

If that's what really happened, this guy deserves to go to prison for a very long time. Every responsible gun owner should know that you only shoot to stop an immediate threat*. If you cannot grasp this concept, you need to sell all of your firearms ASAP.

*State law determining whether that threat includes threat to others, includes sexual assault, etc.


This may be a shock, but not every gun owner is responsible.  Especially because being responsible is not a requirement for owning a gun.  (there are virtually no requirements, the NRA makes sure of that!)
 
2014-02-19 05:57:49 AM

Penman: He was fully within his constitutional right to defend himself. Non-story.


How was he defending himself?  He was judge, jury, and executioner on some kids that he "suspected" might have egged his car.  It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't have the kids who were actually guilty of egging his car.  If the people in this car were actually shooting at him, then you would be correct (about defending himself).  Otherwise, you just like to defend anybody who apparently shoots at anybody else.  Cause why?  You're an NRA supporter?  By this statement alone, I'd ban you (for life) from having a gun (if only I had the power).
 
2014-02-19 06:40:16 AM

bluenovaman: In cases like this I'm OK with the death penalty.


Seriously, just say what you mean.
 
2014-02-19 06:58:31 AM

CK2005: bluenovaman: In cases like this I'm OK with the death penalty.

Seriously, just say what you mean.


While I can appreciate your lame attempt at correcting me, you are wrong.
There are cases here in Texas where governor good hair has had innocent people executed and that is very wrong. I can only assume that the convictions were based on circumstancial evidence, where this case is pretty cut and dried as to who did what.
 
2014-02-19 07:01:07 AM
Has Sharpton staged a demonstration yet?
 
2014-02-19 07:01:53 AM

bluenovaman: CK2005: bluenovaman: In cases like this I'm OK with the death penalty.

Seriously, just say what you mean.

While I can appreciate your lame attempt at correcting me, you are wrong.
There are cases here in Texas where governor good hair has had innocent people executed and that is very wrong. I can only assume that the convictions were based on circumstancial evidence, where this case is pretty cut and dried as to who did what.


Sorry for the snark, I was just trying to say you're either for the death penalty or against it.  If you say "I'm against the death penalty UNLESS..." then you are for the death penalty.
 
2014-02-19 07:03:19 AM
Then again you were applying it to this one particular case and didn't make a blanket statement about your views on the death penalty and I probably need to go to bed.
 
2014-02-19 07:03:47 AM

Lcpl_Dunno: hardinparamedic: Lcpl_Dunno: At least this way there will be actual effects at the end that aren't written on paper and ignored.

Yeah. One man is going to jail for the rest of his life, and another person is dead.

Oh, those rascals sure learned their lesson this time!

[www.troll.me image 551x574]

You have ... no idea what the hell you're talking about do you? I said reporting this to the police was stupid. That idiot suggested that the only other method of resolving the issue was going on a shooting spree. I suggested that beating ones head against the wall was better than reporting it to the police because at least beating your head against the wall does something.

By anyone's calculations ... you're an idiot.


Why would reporting it to the police be stupid?  He calls the police, they send someone over to document the damage and take his statement, and maybe the kids coming back see the police car out front and decide to just keep on going.  He tells the police he expects they're coming back, maybe the police set up a car out front to keep an eye out.  Maybe they have a squad car patrol the neighborhood looking for the people who did it.  If he had a good idea of who it was then maybe the police go knock on some doors and get the parents of the kids involved, cell phones get called and the kids get brought home.

There are a lot of situations where calling the police would have helped.
 
2014-02-19 07:06:54 AM

fusillade762: MaudlinMutantMollusk: and committing a terroristic act.

Oh for Fark's sake.

Well, isn't terrorism by definition trying to scare someone?

Terrorism used to require a political component. These days everything is terrorism.


Actually a lot if states have older laws where 'terroristic act' means stuff like shooting up buildings. Stuff designed to cause damage and intimidate.
 
2014-02-19 07:12:25 AM

liam76: fusillade762: MaudlinMutantMollusk: and committing a terroristic act.

Oh for Fark's sake.

Well, isn't terrorism by definition trying to scare someone?

Terrorism used to require a political component. These days everything is terrorism.

Actually a lot if states have older laws where 'terroristic act' means stuff like shooting up buildings. Stuff designed to cause damage and intimidate.


Georgia has a terroristic threats statute, usually people threatening to kill each other. The commonplace nature of political terrorism is newer than the idea of being terrorized.
 
2014-02-19 07:15:02 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: He should have just said that they were playing load music and he thought they were pulling a gun. No wait, he's black, so won't get away with that.


You do realize Dunn didn't either, right?
 
2014-02-19 07:19:43 AM

CK2005: Then again you were applying it to this one particular case and didn't make a blanket statement about your views on the death penalty and I probably need to go to bed.


I'm against it in most cases. But when a case like this and Dunn where we are 100% certain of who did what to whom and it is particularly egregious, I say hang them and be done.
/I know Dunn is different, just an example.
 
2014-02-19 07:21:41 AM
"In this photo provided by the Pulaski County, Ark., Sheriff is of Willie Noble, 48, of Little Rock, who is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death a 15-year-old girl."

Are all his bases belong to Willie Noble?
 
2014-02-19 07:45:37 AM
Pretty typical gun owner.
 
2014-02-19 07:55:56 AM

Penman: He was fully within his constitutional right to defend himself. Non-story.


Yeah. The problem with your claim: Arkansas' self-defense law clearly states that the use of deadly force by a lawful gun owner is only justified when there is a clear and immediate threat to the life of the gun owner, or to those immediately around him.

By the man's own admission, this did not happen. He waited inside of his house with a gun, with clear intent of what he was about to do (pre-meditation and homicidal intent), and when he saw the car drive by again, he fired upon the vehicle (Which alone is a no-sell in a self-defense claim. No weapon, and no one was even out of the vehicle? Yeah. Right. He was "afraid".) The vehicle sped off, and rather than call police, he dicked around until they came knocking to arrest him.
 
2014-02-19 08:22:27 AM
media2.s-nbcnews.com

"Good job!"
 
2014-02-19 08:25:46 AM
static2.wikia.nocookie.net
"You said you were just gonna scare the teenagers."

houseofgeekery.files.wordpress.com
"They looked pretty scared to me!"
 
2014-02-19 08:58:17 AM
No racism angle?!? DAMMIT!!!

/well who cares then
 
2014-02-19 09:26:49 AM

Oh_Enough_Already: We're not even allowed to talk about black on white crimes because that, too, would be racist, whereas ANY crime with a black victim and a white perpetrator is immediately presumed to be race-based and that fact is trumpeted from the hilltops ad nauseum to reinfoce that narrative.


The lady doth protest too much.
 
2014-02-19 09:51:24 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: He should have just said that they were playing load music and he thought they were pulling a gun. No wait, he's black, so won't get away with that.


The white guy who used that same stupid argument has been found guilty of three counts of attempted murder.  He is going to be sentenced to at least 20 years in prison, and quite possibly 60 years.

Despite your implication, I don't think he got away with that.

Firethorn: Apparently that logic thing isn't working for you.  Terrorism is roughly defined as 'committing violent acts with the goal of enacting political change by it'.


I understand what you're saying and I agree with it.  However, that's a completely unrelated argument.  The guy I had responded to was claiming that if you actually kill people, it isn't terrorism, that the two are mutually exclusive.  That's a very stupid argument.
 
2014-02-19 10:02:17 AM

pla: Mistake #1:

Always, always, always shoot to kill.  Then they call you a hero for defending your home and family, instead of finding yourself "charged with first-degree murder, five counts of aggravated assault and committing a terroristic act".

Terroristic act.  Wow.  Al Qaeda has won by such a huge margin it hurts.  Congrats, we've given Osama a victory worth dying for.


Well... You just lost the responsible gun owner title and joined the mall ninja list.

You don't shoot at a car from your porch. There is no defensible reason to do so. Absolutely none. This was not a case of self defense.

And as a CCW holder, you shoot to neutralize the threat. Nothing more or less. And you have a responsibility to be level headed, and not a pants pissing coward.

Your jailhouse lawyering is going to get someone killed.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report