Thieves let go, victim goes to jail.

[zrinkill]

I agree. What is being reported is a highly unlikely situation if all the facts have been presented. I'm betting there is a lot more to this. I'm sure it's a lot of very selective story telling to get page views.

Funny that you did not say the same thing in the grandma beaten by the cop thread.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Funny that you did not say the same thing in the grandma beaten by the cop thread.

I thought you said I'm predictable in that I always respond the way?

Anyhow, I was responding to BP. Did BP (or someone else) also say this?

You're digging zrinkill. Not sure why you've got a cob up your *** about me all the sudden. If you don't like me or what I say, thats what ignore is for.

 

[burmafrd]

NYC favors criminals, nothing new there.

The whole story is slowly coming out because the cops and DA are looking REALLY bad and do not want all the really nasty stuff to come out anytime soon, hoping things will die down. 12 counts on a 80 year old being robbed. If that is not obscene then nothing is. Anyone defending the DA and company on this need to take a good look in the mirror. THe FACT that none of the criminals are facing charges is even more telling. Only those like NYC seem to think otherwise.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Wow. A lot of you guys are nothing but mindless sheep. One guy says something that is completely false and take it as fact without even checking to see if it's true. :bang2:

 

[zrinkill]

Wow. A lot of you guys are nothing but mindless sheep.

You think its wrong to shoot criminals during a felony robbery when they are driving at an 82 year old man and we are the mindless sheep?

 

[YosemiteSam]

You think its wrong to shoot criminals during a felony robbery when they are driving at an 82 year old man and we are the mindless sheep?

Umm, the law defines it as wrong. Not I. You just assumed I did. I haven't told you my feelings on the subject. I'm one of the biggest death penalty supporters you will ever know.

My point is like when Hostile said, "I wouldn't have missed". Well guess what, if it was Hostile and he didn't miss and killed the guy, he would have been arrested for murder. Based on the fact that it is currently the law, then his arrested would have been the correct thing to do. You can't just decide when and when it's not correct to follow the law. It's the law, you're always supposed to follow it.

Does that mean that I don't believe those guys deserve to be shot? No, but it means that it is illegal and if I don't want to go to jail, then I don't shoot them while they are trying to get away. Not because I don't want to shoot them, but because I have a wife and kids at home that need me at home and not rotting in some jail cell.

That guy shooting at them was a STUPID thing to do. He is in jail for breaking the law, which is exactly what he did. If the law is wrong, then get it changed. Until then, shooting at them in that situation is illegal!

 

[zrinkill]

Umm, the law defines it as wrong.

No it does not ..... the way that DA is interpreting the law is the problem.

That man was protecting himself and his property from two felons, he was not seeking "vigilante justice" (which is what that DA was trying to claim)

And he is not in Jail ...... he is at home with charges pending.

I am just glad that old man is not as easily cowed as some are from doing whats right.

 

[kmp77]

If someone comes onto your property to steal from you, that should be automatic forfeiture of their right to be a living breathing human being on this planet.

Our laws and the society they were designed to protect are both going down the crapper. Once criminals have more rights than you, the system is officially broken. Time to burn it down and rebuild.

 

[YosemiteSam]

No it does not ..... the way that DA is interpreting the law is the problem.

That man was protecting himself and his property from two felons, he was not seeking "vigilante justice" (which is what that DA was trying to claim)

And is is not in Jail ...... he is at home with charges pending.

How exactly did the man get in front of their truck to almost be ran over causing him to shoot them? I'm pretty sure they didn't drive through his house. Did he put himself in front of their truck? That too sounds stupid. Cornering a wild animal (or a criminal) is generally frowned upon due to how dangerous it is.

If he put himself in position to almost get ran over, then that is no excuse for trying to shoot them since it was his direct actions that caused the situation to be the way it was in the first place.

...but I digress. You've already decided and clearly are not interested in viewing it in any other light.

 

[zrinkill]

If he put himself in position to almost get ran over, then that is no excuse for trying to shoot them since it was his direct actions that caused the situation to be the way it was in the first place.

What? It was the guys whose property was being stolen who was at fault for the dangerous situation? ...... aren't you the guy who said nobody is defending these criminals? Yet you say it was the 82 year old mans fault.

Sounds like the old "women get rapped because the dress provocatively" argument.

...but I digress. You've already decided and clearly are not interested in viewing it in any other light.

Ironic that you would say that.

 

[YosemiteSam]

What? It was the guys whose property was being stolen who was at fault for the dangerous situation? ...... aren't you the guy who said nobody is defending these criminals? Yet you say it was the 82 year old mans fault.

I mean, did he run in front of their car while they were trying to escape.

Ironic that you would say that.

It is? If it wasn't the law, I would have shot them too.

 

[Hoofbite]

Not really a big fan of someone just opening fire in the middle of the street over an item. If the guy is on his own land have at it but chasing someone out into the road and shooting could do a hell of a lot more harm than good. Once the criminals get off of your land, there's a few more angles that need to be considered.

What if would have fired into someone's house and ended up killing someone. No way in hell he should be charged with murder or attempted murder but someone should bring that point up to the guy.

No trailer is worth an innocent life.

Meanwhile, these guys should face charges immediately. Pretty dumb that they haven't so far.

 

[dropshot001]

wow, that's incredible. and these are the same people who are allowed to "protect" us.

 

[vta]

Not really a big fan of someone just opening fire in the middle of the street over an item. If the guy is on his own land have at it but chasing someone out into the road and shooting could do a hell of a lot more harm than good. Once the criminals get off of your land, there's a few more angles that need to be considered.

What if would have fired into someone's house and ended up killing someone. No way in hell he should be charged with murder or attempted murder but someone should bring that point up to the guy.

No trailer is worth an innocent life.

Meanwhile, these guys should face charges immediately. Pretty dumb that they haven't so far.

Did he shoot into the street? If he states they tried to run him over and the guy did get shot in the face, it seems unlikely he shot them from behind.

 

[Hoofbite]

Did he shoot into the street? If he states they tried to run him over and the guy did get shot in the face, it seems unlikely he shot them from behind.

I dunno. Says they were fleeing. I'd assume they were in the street.

 

[Hostile]

Umm, the law defines it as wrong. Not I. You just assumed I did. I haven't told you my feelings on the subject. I'm one of the biggest death penalty supporters you will ever know.

My point is like when Hostile said, "I wouldn't have missed". Well guess what, if it was Hostile and he didn't miss and killed the guy, he would have been arrested for murder. Based on the fact that it is currently the law, then his arrested would have been the correct thing to do. You can't just decide when and when it's not correct to follow the law. It's the law, you're always supposed to follow it.

Does that mean that I don't believe those guys deserve to be shot? No, but it means that it is illegal and if I don't want to go to jail, then I don't shoot them while they are trying to get away. Not because I don't want to shoot them, but because I have a wife and kids at home that need me at home and not rotting in some jail cell.

That guy shooting at them was a STUPID thing to do. He is in jail for breaking the law, which is exactly what he did. If the law is wrong, then get it changed. Until then, shooting at them in that situation is illegal!

I can't believe you're not outraged at this. They were stealing from him, tried to run him over, and one of them got shot. One guy.

4 counts of attempted 1st degree murder. Four?

First degree, as in premeditated. Uh, that means he conspired and planned to carry out murder. Do you grasp that? So this moron of a DA is saying that this old man baited them to steal the trailer so he could off 2 of them four times.

The second they tried to run him over he was justified to shoot.

If the guy he shot had died the other guy would be facing felony 1st degree murder charges because he died in the commission of a felony.

On top of this the 2 morons who stole the trailer have criminal histories and are here illegally.

Your priorities on who to defend here are seriously screwed up.

 

[Hostile]

:laugh2:

Now people park flat bed trailers right out on the street and these guys were never on this man's property.

Wheat Ridge is such a thriving metropolis too. I bet old man Wallace had neighbors ducking every which way as he blasted away. [/sarcasm]

Discouraging how foolish some people can be.

 

[Hoofbite]

:laugh2:

Now people park flat bed trailers right out on the street and these guys were never on this man's property.

Wheat Ridge is such a thriving metropolis too. I bet old man Wallace had neighbors ducking every which way as he blasted away. [/sarcasm]

Discouraging how foolish some people can be.

Yeah. Not what I said at all.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I can't believe you're not outraged at this. They were stealing from him, tried to run him over, and one of them got shot. One guy.

4 counts of attempted 1st degree murder. Four?

First degree, as in premeditated. Uh, that means he conspired and planned to carry out murder. Do you grasp that? So this moron of a DA is saying that this old man baited them to steal the trailer so he could off 2 of them four times.

The second they tried to run him over he was justified to shoot.

If the guy he shot had died the other guy would be facing felony 1st degree murder charges because he died in the commission of a felony.

On top of this the 2 morons who stole the trailer have criminal histories and are here illegally.

Your priorities on who to defend here are seriously screwed up.

Who said I wasn't? First, it's absolutely ridiculous to consider it first degree. First degree requires premeditation. Considering the guy didn't know they were coming to steal his trailer a head of time, that *almost* throws that completely out the window. The fact that he is charged with four accounts is also ridiculous as there were only two guys. The fact that the other guys haven't even been charged even after admitting they were stealing screams something is amiss here. Be it the police or the reporter not reporting all the facts.

...and AGAIN, I defended nobody! I just said the man committed a crime by the letter of the law! Now, the SPIRIT of the law may damn well be different. The problem is, implementation (letter of) is what matters!

 

[ajk23az]

LMAO. Their illegal immigrants and people wonder why we have our law.