Man Shot & Killed At New Jersey Anti-Crime Party

Well, I guess this didn't turn out quite the way they wanted it to.

Paterson man shot and killed during anti-crime block party

PATERSON — A community vigil against crime turned deadly Tuesday night when a 39-year-old city man was fatally shot on a crowded street during a National Night Out block party.

Several witnesses who were at the block party told police that Godfrey, of North York Street, and Rochester had been arguing loudly, Humphrey said. The argument soon turned physical, he said, and Rochester pulled out a gun and fired one shot at Godfrey’s head.

[edit on 8/6/10 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

There was a word for this, I forgot what it was
it was a word that described a coincidental and contradictory moment, I think it started with a Q...

Originally posted by Mythic Chris
There was a word for this, I forgot what it was
it was a word that described a coincidental and contradictory moment, I think it started with a Q...

I don't know which word you mean but Ironic will fit the bill until you remember the Q word.

Sad world.

Originally posted by badgerprints
I don't know which word you mean but Ironic will fit the bill until you remember the Q word.

Sad world.

I think the correct word, disposing of any contemporary connotations, would be "queer".

Who brings a gun to a anti-crime party anyhow..

The shooter needs to be executed simply for that decision...like bringing twinkies at a weight watchers convention

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Who brings a gun to a anti-crime party anyhow..

Are you implying that carrying is a crime in itself? Hmmm....

Originally posted by Mythic Chris
There was a word for this, I forgot what it was
it was a word that described a coincidental and contradictory moment, I think it started with a Q...

Quip?! I dunno mang.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Who brings a gun to a anti-crime party anyhow..

Are you implying that carrying is a crime in itself? Hmmm....

Only if your a paranoid sociopath

Why do people need guns?
1) to hunt something.....well, not alot to hunt at the party...
2) Self protection ...its a anticrime party...you would think if there is one time to leave the fear at home would be at this event...if anything just for the statement...
3) Sec Amd Statement - Not the right format for this particular party...you also have the right of free speech, but that does not mean at every jewish heritige festival you must start shouting into a bullhorn the merits of being a nazi...unless your a idiot.

Guns are not crimemakers...but they do make thoughts quickly turn into charges.

Mentally unstable people should not carry guns...and by mentally unstable, I am probably talking about the ones whom carry guns the most (and about 1/4th of ATS members).

Guns are either a good defense, or a retards tool for self expression through intimidation and/or homicide.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Guns are either a good defense, or a retards tool for self expression through intimidation and/or homicide.

I did go to a place last night which had a business that had a sign saying "Deck or Barn". I thought if one couldn't decide which it is, it's probably of little use.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Who brings a gun to a anti-crime party anyhow..

The shooter needs to be executed simply for that decision...like bringing twinkies at a weight watchers convention

I am going to guess that you have never been to Paterson?

Unarmed would definitely be 'underdressed' at any event in Paterson, NJ!

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Are you implying that carrying is a crime in itself? Hmmm....

It is a crime where I come from, and I would say this murder is a good example of why that is.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
It is a crime where I come from, and I would say this murder is a good example of why that is.

It may be illegal but it's not a crime, if you sense what I'm getting at. And no, one murdering asshat is not a good reason or example.

If I had a nickle for every time someone got shot in jersey id be rich, lol. Theres so much unreported stuff that goes on all around us we have no clue.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

It may be illegal but it's not a crime, if you sense what I'm getting at. And no, one murdering asshat is not a good reason or example.

Ok I get you point. It is more like a felony out here. But how, is it not a good example ?

The chances that this murder took place if carrying a gun was illegal was a lot smaller.
I think these situations of trigger happy lunatics are a good example.

Why do you think they are not ?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I think these situations of trigger happy lunatics are a good example.

Why do you think they are not ?

Because I loathe a system based entirely around the actions of a minority of lunatics used to frighten and lull the majority of lunatics into a false sense of security and misattribution of cause and effect.

While some other weapon could potentially have been employed to do the grizzly deed, guns go "bang" and are scary, especially if you repeat that often enough.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


You make a good point. There are countries where people can carry a gun and nothing happens.

What I see in the US is that people are indoctrinated by fear and so on which cause them to react different on situations.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people but when one does not need a gun to hunt for his food then why take any risk ?

We are not allowed to carry guns but it is not very difficult to get one. Why should we without the reason to use one, just because it is fun or because we should be allowed to make our own choices ?

That would be a good one, as our own choice is not an option in countless of subjects.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


You're a quick study actually.

It really is about choice. I'm not a "gun nut". I'm not really that interested in them personally and I don't see an object as inherently imbued with evil. I've merely grown tired of the least responsible defining the paramaters of the society in which I live, thus allowing them too much influence in personal freedoms. These minorities (I do not mean "racial"! Capice?) effectively have a greater vote than the more responsible majority of individuals.

So, it brings up a question: should the state (if we really want one, ultimately ) prosecute and punish criminal behavior and the citizenry prevent it through vigilance rather than the state having sole responsibility for both?

Clearly both approaches have holes.

Edit: Remove sentence inspired by fuzzy recall from reading days ago.

[edit on 8/7/2010 by EnlightenUp]

And this is why the black community can't have nice things... How many times do I have to hear that a guy gets shot at a "community organized event"?

I'm surprised the paper didn't take the whole "victim was a paragon of the community" BS and actually wrote the the victim had served a prison sentence. You only get that muscle definition by doing time.

P.S. I love how they used a picture of the killer with his Hitler-like 'stache and "high eyes".

A ton of witnesses and the perp is known and...
No arrest yet?
Well, see what happens when you depend on the police to defend you.

Oh silly me ...the cops no longer respond to stimuli because the money has gone to pay for presidential holidays...eerrr, banker bail outs...
...or Israeli missle sytems....

Oh thats the answer!
From now on every one gets their own missle system...
There, problem solved.

Originally posted by Danbones
From now on every one gets their own missle system...
There, problem solved.

I've considered that and I wouldn't mind, however, blowing up one's own house to protect the contents from theft or the occupants from harm isn't really such a great thing, even if it does prevent the intruder from acting.