It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Defend your daughter? 20 years in prison

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:35 AM
but what about the poor teen boy he shot at has any one thought about how all of this has affected him.. ( Im been sarcastic) the criminals have more rights than the victims, the rapist,s murderers, and low life scum bags will get good medical treatment, food, and will be given help to reajust when they leave prison, but the victims get nothing, and if a victim stand up for his/her self then they get punished worse than the prepetraitor

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:41 AM
I believe my warning shot would have been closer to his kneecap so he would have a limp to remind him what being an idiot will get you. I am a firm believer that gun control should involve proper trigger sqeeze and hitting what you aim at. The only one that should be serving time is the beligerant boyfriend for domestic assault.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:48 AM
Most of the mandatory minimum laws are sold to the public through initiatives that get voted on. I know that's the case in my state, where the insufferable moron voters repeatedly vote on things they don't read and then don't understand why things are happening. People need to read the laws they are voting on. These days if the ads for a measure say something like that it's to punish those horrible meth users and dealers, it's probably something about giving police the ability to steal from you with no cause or some other such thing. Everyone's eager to lock people up forever because Americans are so busy blaming each other for whatever hardships they are enduring, rather than looking at the real criminals and culprits behind it all. It's always easier to blame someone you see as lesser than you than face the reality that very powerful people outside of your personal control, people that may seem untouchable, are responsible.

The more people have asked the government to solve their problems, the more freedom they have had taken away. The inalienable right to defend yourself and your family and your property has been stripped so that people are afraid to so much as use force to stop a home invasion for fear they themselves will be placed in jail, which obviously happens quite often. Nobody "in power" wants you to be able to defend yourself because not only would you not need them so much, you could also defend yourself against them as well. It's a scary thought for everyone whose business it is to interfere with your business.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by Vitchilo

Did Wollard take legal advice from one qualified to give it and did he engage legal representation in court, if so and presuming the above version of events is true, wtf a truly monumental miscarriage of justice, he should've killed the punk and thus made sure there was no conflicting version of events being told about the case.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by keepureye2thesky

Sadly, that is the truth.

One more nail in the coffin against Mandatory sentencing. I'll never agree with it, because every case is different, and it does NOT prevent people committing the serious crimes that were the cause of bring in Mandatory sentencing.

It just catches the guys like this.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:53 AM
What a sad and so unfair story. This will become a bad moral and law value to the young generation.

This is just to show how law and justice can be so far from eachother.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:56 AM
... and what will happen? Everyone will complain on ATS about how terrible it all is (I agree), and do nothing about it!

What can you do? You can do what I am trying to start doing, but I am not American (English (not British)) so it's difficult to act in/for America, and that is confronting the media by email, regularly, sending them links to stories they should be posting, for example. Writing decent emails to MEP's in Brussels. It might be pathetic, but it makes me feel good.

I would happily rally the entire country together but who will join me? Nobody, because they're watching Britain's Got Talent or down the pub drinking themselves silly. Or, they're just so oblivious to life that they wouldn't even know what I'm talking about anyway. Or, as is usually the case, they will say "You can't change anything".


Let's prove them wrong. Because complaining on ATS (like I am doing right now but for a reason, bare with me here) will do nothing. Why don't hypnotists work together by getting in to secure buildings (rapid induction for security guards, for example). Why don't people bring out their own snipers and take out politicians? Why?

America, you're screwed too. You even have your own very active and full forum about BS in your country and yes, I'm sorry about it because it makes me sick... but you all sit around going to work, paying your tax and filling up your car and whining on ATS.

When will it change?


That is all.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:00 AM
Criminal goes free....innocent man gets 20 years in prison......note to self.....shoot the criminal....if I'm going to go to jail the evil will atleast be DEAD.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:15 AM
This is just awfull, considering that he did not even harm anybody.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:12 AM
why fire a warning shot?

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:21 AM
He should have shot the chump. This would have been a case of 'the chump was beating everyone up in a home and took a beatdown.'

If you shoot make it count.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:24 AM
- "What boyfriend ? My daughter didn't have a boyfriend!!!"
- " Oh you mean that nice boy that comes here once in a while, no officer, now that you mention it, I haven't seen him in a couple of weeks....."

Trust me....They would of never found that s.o.b's body and that little puke would of wished and pleaded to die before I ended it for him......

This pisses me right the f*ck off !!!

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Vitchilo
This story is just insane. Stupid ``mandatory minimum sentences`` and stupid jurors strike again.

Are severe mandatory minimums for certain gun crimes especially problematic after Heller?
What happened :

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm “and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”... This [ruling] must ring awfully hollow to Orville Lee Wollard who, two years ago tomorrow was sentenced to two decades in a Florida prison for protecting his family with a firearm.

On a spring morning in 2008, Wollard got a panicked call from his wife. The teenage boyfriend who had been beating up his 15-year old daughter was back at their house causing trouble. Wollard rushed home and found the boy on the porch and his daughter with a black eye. Wollard told the boy to leave, but instead, the boy attacked him, ripping out stitches from Wollard’s recent surgery, and then ran off with Wollard’s daughter. When the two returned several hours later, the boyfriend began shoving Orville’s daughter around the Wollards’ home. Wollard’s wife and eldest daughter screamed for him to do something. Wollard was frightened for his daughter’s and his family’s safety.

He grabbed his legally registered pistol and confronted the boy, again asking him to leave. The boy stopped assaulting Wollard’s daughter. He smiled, punched a hole in the wall, and began moving toward Wollard. Wollard, who had had firearms training as a former member of the auxiliary police force, aimed a bullet into the wall next to the boyfriend to scare him. No one was hurt, and the boy finally left. That is where this story should have ended, but it didn’t.

What's crazy :

Several weeks later, the abusive boy called the police to report Wollard for aggravated assault, and Wollard was arrested. 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. Prosecutors charged Wollard with various crimes, including shooting into a dwelling (his own house), child abuse (because the boy was under 18) and aggravated assault with a weapon. A jury convicted Wollard of possessing and discharging a firearm, which triggered Florida’s mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated assault with a weapon. Wollard was sentenced to the mandatory prison term of 20 years without parole.

Even the judge thought it was BS.

At sentencing, the judge said, “This [sentence] is obviously excessive … if it weren’t for the mandatory minimum … I would use my discretion and impose some separate sentence, having taken into consideration the circumstances of the event.”

Stupid jurors :

Wollard is right.... To be clear, a jury found Wollard guilty. Jurors apparently did not believe he acted in self-defense..... Whether this jury reached the correct conclusion is open to debate.

One good guy in jail for 20 years because of some stupid politicians and stupid voters who wanted ``mandatory minimum sentences`` to ``not be soft on crime``...

Excuse me folks, a ridiculous court ruling not withstanding, can we go back and look at
the events that led up to this action that was taken by this Wollard fellow? He gets a call
to come home because his daughter is getting pounded on by some punk. He gets home to
find his kid sporting a shiner. He gets into a physical confrontation unable to hold his own.
Do we know how old dad is? Do we know the extent of dads surgery? Do we know the physical
makeup of the individuals involved and why did the daughter take off with this punk for "several hours".
Why didnt mom call 911 at the onset instead of calling the father who just had some kind of unknown surgery?
To many questions? I have a few more.What happened during the "several hours" that the daughter was missing.
Why wasnt an APB put out for these two? A lot of missing info on this situation. Just to be clear, I am a staunch advocate of gun ownership. After having said all of that, in the final analysis, I would have put a round between this loosers eyes and the hole in the wall would have been a hell of a lot messier.
If I am going to do time it better be worth it. At my age 20+ yrs in the slammer wouldnt matter.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:14 AM
Stupid yanks. If he's given the boy an old fasioned beat down with his fists he'd have been fine, but no, he had to pull out a gun. Why can't americans be real men and fight like men, they are wimps who hide behind guns and shoot at 16 year old kids.
edit on 13-6-2011 by SpookyFox because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:16 AM
I would have just shot the kid. With none of the family witnessing against him, his confession, and firearm, they would have given him 3 years minimum!
Murder in this case would have gotten him less time!

We truly live in a backwards world, and anyone believing otherwise is backwards. So don't worry when everyone thinks your bat# crazy, because your probably one of the few sane people left.

The sadest part about this story is that it was probably some black kid who's going to come back to this family while he's in jail with his homies and turn his daughter into a chemical-addicted whore, NOTHING will be the same when he gets out.

We should file a petition for this, and if we get enough signatures cause a stir and a retry, they do it for the #ing criminals ! Let's do it for him.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by neo96there is no justice in this world in a country that is suppose to have justice and liberty for all.

I remember reciting those words as a kid in elementary school and being proud of my country. Those words are empty rhetoric nowadays. There is no justice in this country, and little left in the world.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by kro32
He shoulda just called the cops. Not like he didn't have enough time to hit 911.

I agree he shouldn't be in jail or anything and this is an example of how firearms usually cause more problems than they solve. Had he not had a weapon he would have handled the situation differently (like calling the cops) but instead his first instinct was to grab his firearm.

Pulling a gun on a kid should be an absolute last resort and this was not the case here otherwise he would have shot him dead.

Perhaps he should have called the cops (not that i think he should), but did you even read the article?

The kid already attacked him once when he asked him to leave. They returned, and the kid started shoving around the girl. Remember what happened the last time the guy asked the kid to leave? He got attacked. Completely logical and rational to grab him gun and tell the kid to leave again, as means of defense against being attacked again. According to the article, the kid continued to approached the guy--who was holding a gun-- and who probably fearful for his own self and family. Should he have shot the kid instead of shooting a warning shot? Probably would have been less paperwork, yes, but the guy didn't want to hurt him he just wanted him to leave. 'Course, dude probably shouldn't have shot a hole in his house, but it's his house and he should at least be commended for choosing a non-lethal option, as many here clearly reflect the trigger-happiness of many people.

The kid is obviously a punk who knew what he could do and how to play things to his benefit. He's probably chuckling to himself, and continuing to beat up on the girl.

Stupid law. Screwed up bassackwards justice system.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:32 AM
Two things here.
Being liberal, people tend to slather me in the same crap about gun control that conservatives like to throw... but I do know how to use a gun. My dad was military and made sure that I could use any of the weapons in the house effectively. Case in point - when I was 11, I met Army sharpshooter standards with an AR-15. (24 of 40 at targets between 50-300 yards over open sights IIRC).

That being said, Texas has castle doctrine, and also the ability to defend someone else with deadly force if you feel their life or bodily integrity is in danger.

So, in my humble opinion, this was one of those situations where I think there should have been two sides to this story - the shooter's side, and the dead boy's side.

Murder gets 4 and assault gets 20?

I still don't like assault rifles. A good rifleman will be more effective in kill ratio and shots expended than six guys with full-auto. skill always beats volume.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:45 AM
Most of you would be in the same trouble or more than this guy from reading your replies. You have to know the gun laws of your State.

Here in FL and probably most other States, even if you have concealed weapons permit and lawfully owned're never supposed to show it or use it to intimidate anyone. When the guy did this he earned himself a charge. Secondly, he fired a warning shot thus earning himself another charge.

Bottom line he handled the situation like some of you backwood residents are proclaiming you would have and he got hemmed up.

What should have happened is his wife should have called 911 and then called him afterward. He should have come home and found the police already there or if not they would have been on the way. But no, he's probably a member at this site where there seems to be a high number of Daniel Boone types who really believe that shid they be typing.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by SpookyFox
Stupid yanks. If he's given the boy an old fasioned beat down with his fists he'd have been fine, but no, he had to pull out a gun. Why can't americans be real men and fight like men, they are wimps who hide behind guns and shoot at 16 year old kids.
edit on 13-6-2011 by SpookyFox because: (no reason given)

Please learn to actually join the conversation these petty insults do not bring anything to the table and are not helpful in the bit. Remeber if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all.

Well I am going to say that you actually did not read the article and if you did some reading comprehension is needed on your part. Because in the article it says that Wollard the man sentenced to jail or in your words the (stupid Yank) did try the old "fashioned" [sic] beat down. But during that conforntation he had stiches from a surgery that he recently had were torn out. So it would be deducted that they did try to fight and he lost the first battle. I would not say that this man is a wimp. He felt threatened and he wanted the boy gone. He did not want to hurt the kid hence the "warning shot".

After reading this article it is extremely dissapointing to see the position that this man is in. It is sad that the "right" move for this guy would have been to just shoot the kid and claim that he broke into their house and was attacking everyone and that he had to shoot him in self-defense. The man would have been let off and he would be with his family again. Instead we have a law abiding citizen now locked up for a long time, and now we have another 15 year old that will most likely end up beating more women that he dates.

I agree with most people in this thread that minimum sentencing is pointless yes they are trying to be tough on crime. Where I see a lot of the problems steming from is from the prison industry itself. Many of these prisions especially private prisons will hire lobbyist to go to polticians and push for longer and more severe minimum sentencing. The reason is so the prison can make more money of the prisoner because they keep them longer and they also don't have to worry about losing their work force because they have serverd their time. The prison system is just a modern day version of slavery. Sad but true

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in