Defend your daughter? 20 years in prison

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

with the left all to happy to oblige.

Well, we've never argued that our side of the aisle consists of vertebrates...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

with the left all to happy to oblige.

Oh, absolutely. I just thought it was funny you 'didnt want to make it partisan' but were trying to blame the Democrats for 'mandatory minimums'.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


hey now i owned up every party involved in mandatory minimum laws are in the wrong here

from jeb bush to the state house and senate to the judge and jury and that includeds both sides of the aisle who wrote and passed that.

This is why you do not point and fire a gun, at a person, unless you intend to kill someone.

All he had to do was put a bullet in the guys head and there would likely be little arguement.

Reply to post by kro32

So protecting ourselves and our family should be left to the government?




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

S & F OP.

That's why you don't pull a gun and wave it around. The first time a bad guy sees the weapon should be the last time he sees anything else.

If you brandish the weapon you are just encouraging the scum to try and take it from you. Or use their own weapons against you or a loved one.

Pulling a firearm is not the way to de-escalate a situation; you can't hide behind a gun and trust some fruitcake or drugged-up freak to be intimidated. You should never pull a gun until you're already past the decision point to fire it.

And I don't mean putting a round into a wall.

The worlds gone mad ... Laws no longer protect the innocent because there invented by and implemented by idiots.
I can't help seeing what's happening around me and wondering if everyone has gone mad, or dumb or both !
Unfortunately I have no faith at all in the Law courts or the police (from numerous experiences).
If I was ever in a situation where I had to rely on the Law/Police to protect my family from being threatened or worse - I wouldn't ... I would have shot him in the face and disposed of the body.
Not nice I know - but you have to look after your own or else look what happens.
No one else will

Jurors do not get to write their own laws you know. There were specific crimes laid out before them (read them above) and they do not have the option of looking at things outside the scope of that. Every law presented them was a no-brainer as to what their decision was with no wiggle room whatsoever. The jurors could not have decided differently if they wanted too. The issue isn't that he broke the laws though it's more about the mandatory sentence which does not allow a judge to look at other evidence as to the reasons why a crime was committed. In this case neither the jurors or the judge could do anything to help this man out. The law had effectively tied their hands.

Total nonsense, as others have already explained.

This man should be considered a hero. He tried to defend his family and was railroaded.

The real criminal here is the Judge.

Old song for a new America.
youtu.be...

reply to post by Vitchilo


he should have shot him in the head. no one to call the police then...

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by kro32

 

So protecting ourselves and our family should be left to the government?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Don't mind kro32, he's a shill. I wish I could ban him from my threads, he's annoying as hell.

reply to post by Vitchilo

Orville Wollard did not think he had committed a crime by protecting his family. He rejected a plea deal that would have given him probation and a felony record and instead took his case to court

That says it all. What the authorities wanted was just that; a felony. Yet instead this gentleman showed his loyalty to the constitution, asserting his rights.

It seems to me that the U.S authorities are hacking away at your rights in U.S; all the evidence of recent years points to the fact that soon there will be no Constitution left atall.

former member of the auxiliary police force

This sentence alone explains a lot.

I don't fault this guy at all. If I were in his situation I may have just aimed a little bit differently. I am only going by the laws in my state, since I don't know the laws of the particular state in which the event occurred. Not only was he trespassing, he was assaulting multiple people on their own private property. I can't help but wonder how this would have turned out had he shot the kid. Maybe in the leg or something. Could have turned out completely differently. Entirely different case, which would have been on a significantly different date, since the article says the boy waited some time before "reporting" him, so the jurors most likely would have been different. Just a thought.

You know, thinking about it, with all of the stupid people in the US (if you haven't met any, then, well, ya) I wonder what the odds are of getting 12 complete idiots on the jury? But there is a jury selection process, so it only takes one stupid lawyer to give the prosecution 12 "idiots" who would vote his way. I have also wondered for a long time what state prosecutors think when they are trying someone who doesn't deserve it. I suppose they are the ones who decide to take it to trial in the first place though. It pisses me off when the government, corporations, politicians, etc, can "interpret" the law a certain way in those "particular" cases, but in cases like this the law is the law. I don't know how to really explain, but hopefully you get what I mean.

Sometimes there is gray area, and sometimes it is just black and white, and sometimes there are all the colors of the rainbow, depending on factors such as status and wealth. But in this case the guy didn't deserve what he got, so how is that justice? Seems to me that common sense should outweigh the law if the law is completely moronic. And to make matters worse, he will be in jail and his daughter will probably keep being terrorized.

So there was nothing done to this punk teenager? That is all he is, acting like a big-shot and most likely thinking he is immune because he is a minor. Like I said, I would have shot him in the leg or something, and called the police on my terms. All that would have happened had he called the police is this:

The kid would have ran off. 30-60 minutes later the police would have arrived, which by the way, you aren't going to call and wait for the police when there is an active threat in your own home when you feel like you have the opportunity to defend yourself. Calling the cops doesn't always magically make the threat disappear, lol, I mean really? Anyway, they would have eventually gotten there, maybe even a bit sooner. Within a few days they will have a restraining order on him, but there won't be anyone who will prosecute him because he's a minor. So then, he comes back over and harasses the girl and her family, and the cops are called. Again they take who knows how long to show up...but say the kid is still there. They arrest him. He makes up a bs story, and they deny it. Maybe this time he will be prosecuted, but he will not serve any jail time. Maybe some kind of juvenile lockup for maybe 6 months, if that...

Then simply repeat the above cycle until someone ends up badly injured or killed. Would have been better to just shoot him if that's how it was going to play out. At least if you shot him and didn't kill him, he may think twice before pulling anything again, knowing that you will not hesitate to let him have it. But if they did get a restraining order on him, after calling the cops instead of pulling and shooting the gun, the next time the kid would have broken in, could he have been shot then? This whole thing just stinks, and it is not justice.

Damn the only #ing country the World still respects and envy as it's the very symbol of Freedom and Liberty yet now it seems even America has turned corrupt... can't believe it.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Charged with Child Abuse because the kid was a child.

Yet a cop can tazer a primary school child, or a sheriff can tazer a 15 year old girl... I mean, prevent an unruly school child from not obey the officers instructions equals good policing...

But protect yourself and your family, without HARMING anyone, and you go to jail.

FTS.

Ugh I ... too much bollocks overload today.

If I were smart I'd brave the freezing cold night air and go for a walk instead of nurse this beverage... :/

reply to post by mydarkpassenger



Agreed. Its a terrible sentence and a classic example of how idiotic our criminal justice system is, but at the same time, its also a great example of how *not* to use a firearm in self-defense. The only time your firearm should ever enter the equation at all is if you feel there is an imminent threat against your life or those of your family. If you have time to try to 'scare off' an attacker, the prosecutor and the jury are going to think that you didn't feel your life was in immediate jeopardy and that you used an unjustified level of force.

Originally posted by kp1987
And *snip*, if your gonna just try to scare somebody have a cap gun or blanks near.

True, but then the charges would be going into the public with a replica firearm to intimidate.

Take the punk out the back...... make sure no one sees the grave.

End of story for a 15 year old girl beating punk.

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky

Originally posted by lestweforget
This would most likely have had a different outcome had the boy been brought up on assault charges prior.

Exactly.

I'd like to add that he wasn't protecting his daughter he was flexing his muscle and it bit him in the ass.

So he's in prison for....

flexing his muscle.

?

It seems to me most of the charges laid were brought up not because he was a menace or a threat to this punk, but because of Mandatory sentencing for gun offenses.

It's ridiculous.

I know for certain if I had a young daughter being beaten by some dbag... it would not take mandatory sentence to ensure I spend time inside. I would offer it as a guarantee because someone is either going to be eating hospital food for a long time, or requiring someone to wipe his ass for the rest of his life.

Originally posted by badw0lf
So he's in prison for....

flexing his muscle.

?

It seems to me most of the charges laid were brought up not because he was a menace or a threat to this punk, but because of Mandatory sentencing for gun offenses.

It's ridiculous.

You're 100% right. It is ridiculous. The system is a shiddy place to get tangled.
Instead of alerting authorities of the situation, he took it upon himself to be the law.
Had he pressed charges from the get-go, the kid would be facing some charges for assault and battery
and not him facing a mandatory gun sentence.

reply to post by neo96


You really didn't own up. You spit out jargon that wasn't supported, then you did a little research to find out your party was responsible. Instead of eating your crow and keeping quiet you still have to drag the left down. Please just eat your crow and keep it moving.

As far as the story goes. Some people are saying why did a grown man need a gun. For one the article says this guy was fresh off surgery. Does anyone know what kind of surgery? Didn't he just get his stitches ripped out. Do you know the size and stature of these individuals? Just seeing the weapon obviously wasn't enough of a deterrent. You beat up my daughter and ransack my home in front of me. There won't be a warning shot.

The whole thing still sounds fishy cause if the man had to go that far, he should have already called 911 for the kidnapping of his daughter, doesn't make sense you let your kid get abducted in front of you under hostile conditions. You wait for her safe return? I'm thinking it didn't go down as stated.