Posted on 01/20/2002 6:51:44 PM PST by Byron_the_Aussie
Read the story at msnbc.com
A 43-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Nigeria, went to the Appalachian School of Law on Wednesday to talk to his dean, L. Anthony Sutin, about Odighizuwa's dismissal for failing grades, officials said. He shot Sutin and professor Thomas Blackwell, who taught Odighizuwa's contracts classes, with a .380-caliber pistol, authorities and students said. Also killed was student Angela Dales, 33..."
We at JPFO express our anger at the killer, our sympathy for the survivors of the three persons killed and for those three others who were gravely injured, as well as to all those who grieve and suffer with them.
Before this story becomes recorded as "another senseless school shooting" that "proves why handguns should be banned," we think everyone should know the whole story. Thanks to Robert Waters, author of _The Best Defense_ (www.robertwaters.net), we received the link to the MSNBC report that states:
"Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, officials said."
"We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter," Tracy Bridges, who helped subdue the shooter with other students, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."
In other words: an armed student helped stop the killer. At this point we don't know whether the attacker (Peter) decided to stop before or after he saw the armed student, but we do know that the student Tracy Bridges:
(1) Was prepared for defense by being armed
(2) Had the presence of mind to obtain the weapon when it was needed most
(3) Would have been capable of stopping the attacker if some other means (tackling, etc.) had failed>
We at JPFO salute that student, Tracy Bridges, for having the foresight to be armed and for the courage to use the firearm to save lives. Tracy Bridges exercised the right to keep and bear arms the way that every competent non-violent American should feel proud to do.
Tracy Bridges
We needed four Tracy Bridges on September 11, 2001 -- armed.
The Liberty Crew
Generally, the responding citizen(s) use reasonable minimal force, often they do not have to discharge their weapon. They stop the incident and often are able to hold the perp for LEO's arrival. Unfortunately, we can only speculate on the amount of damage prevented.
Admittedly, the citizens in this incident were ex-LEO's, and had that training and experience, but plain legal-CCW citizens perform in the same manner, and you will see little coverage of that in the media.
Well done, Mr.Bridges.
It must take some noteworthy cojones to draw your piece and confront an armed killer the way this bloke did.
Okay, I'll bite. On second thought...
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2-207 addresses this situation. The Uniform Commercial Code applies to the sale of goods, and is essentially the same across the United States. Traditionally, a contract would not be recognized unless the parties had agreed on all the salient points. A document accepting a written offer, but changing any of the terms or adding a term would be considered a counteroffer. No contract would be formed. The parties could exchange counteroffers indefinitely until they reached agreement on all points.
The UCC recognizes that in reality, each party often sends their standard forms to the other, and formal negotiations are not held to resolve the differences. Shipment and payment are made, often without any further review of the documentation. Recognizing this reality, the UCC departs from the traditional legal standard in this situation, and states that a contract is formed even where the “acceptance” (purchase order) adds terms to the “offer” (quote), unless the acceptance is conditional on assent to the new term. For example, if the quote stated shipment would be made within 90 days, but the purchase order stated that the order was conditional on agreement to ship in 30 days -- in other words, 30 days or no deal -- no contract would be formed unless the seller specifically agreed to the accelerated shipment schedule. The seller would not be bound to ship in 30 days unless it specifically agreed to do so.
So what happens when the acceptance adds additional terms? Under UCC 2-207, the additional term is added, as long as it does not materially alter the terms of the deal, or unless a notice of abjection is given. It is hard to define what is or is not a material alteration. Changing the price or the quantity would be material. Other changes would not be considered material. The real best definition is recognized in the law--if the other party objects, it must be material.
Unfortunately, often the differences between the forms are not recognized until after the fact. Neither party has objected, but now there is a difference in the terms. The forms disagree. What are the terms of the deal? Under UCC. 2-207, the terms of the contract will be those terms on which both forms agree. The conflicting terms will cancel each other out; neither will be enforced. The provisions of the UCC (concerning warranties missing terms on which the parties have not agreed. So, to answer the question--neither controls. The exact terms may be in doubt. If there are “deal-stopper” terms that your company cannot do without, you must monitor the exchange with the other party and resolve such differences expressly through negotiations, and ensure that the documentation reflects the actual agreed terms and conditions of the deal.
by Nicholas Moraitakis, managing partner, Mills, Moraitakis, Kushel
Close. I think a better translation in the liberal mind would be
...failing grades lead to low self-esteem and therefore all guns should be confiscated and their owners imprisoned for life, those mad dogs!
Your translation makes too much sense and worse, is actually somewhat logical. Can't have that.
He he. CJ, we've both seen too much of that.
Stephen Hunter covered this type of motivation with a similarly observant sub plot in his novel Dirty White Boys. The perennial loser, who blames everyone else for his failure (in this case, the Dean) and for whom a gun is the way to a twisted first time accomplishment. The "I showed 'em" motivation, usually spurred by seeing the shock and sorrow of victims of a previous shooting on TV. That's why these crimes come in clusters. Regards, By.
No wonder I haven't seen this in the media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.