Posted on 11/13/2018 10:59:09 AM PST by yesthatjallen
Thank you, you just made my point.......What was the point in firing off a firearm in a neighborhood where such action is against the law at a subject who is definitely not a threat and running away unless you were intending on hitting him?..........
Warning shot was a failed defense argument...........LOL!
Thank you! I'm familiar with that area and the bus routes are so convoluted, in and out of subdivisions, that I would have a problem
There is a school two miles north of me that backs up to a friend of mine's back yard that I have no idea on how to get to their school parking lot. We're talking subdivisions, subdivisions and subdivisions. There is no rhyme or reason on how or why they have been laid out, street navigation is a nightmare..........
Just conjecture, but someone who displays the bad judgement this guy did, strikes me as one who might double down on the “rightness” of his actions. He apparently did say during the trial that he fired a “warning shot”, which is pretty stupid, since the “threat” at that point was at least 30 yards away and doing his best Jessie Owens imitation.
You’d think with a good lawyer, he could have ended up with a lot less time and a good deal of that on probation.
Based on your previous comment where you alleged the jury was from Detroit, wouldn't it be consistent with your inherent racist comment that the jury would have been more inclined to convict the home owner if it WAS a white kid?
Nice Try.............
What should be the punishment for attempting to shoot a fleeing doorbell ringer in the back while they are running away?
Sorry, not playing your game........
Caregiver who left 4-year-old girl to die in hot car fined just $25
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3705559/posts
This country has lost it's f***ing mind.
I think rational people realize he fired a "don't come back" shot, and only that if it was done intentionally. If it was an accidental discharge, than it was just carelessness with no mens rea.
You’d think with a good lawyer, he could have ended up with a lot less time and a good deal of that on probation.
For a non event, he should have ended up with an acquittal. Oh, he should have got a discharging firearm charge, but not much beyond that.
"...bad judgement..."
<<And here we go again with the REPETITION of a false claim. Again, here is proof that he did not fire the gun at someone.
I saw the video - he most certainly did fire the gun AT SOMEONE.
<<No one was hit. Therefore no gun was fired at anyone. Capiche?
Since when does shooting at someone and missing qualify as not shooting at someone?
It’s just called a bad shot where I’m from.
<<Cause you can tell from the video? Bullsh*t. Why wasn’t the kid hit then?
Are you mentally challenged? Just view the video again - tis’ not that long. He DELIBERATELY AIMS AND SHOOTS AT THE 14 YEAR OLD KID AS HE WAS RUNNING AWAY.
<<You need to go to prison for some frivolous charge. You need a dose of the same miscarriage of justice you are so willing to visit on others.
If I shot at an unarmed kid running away from my house after he knocked on my door and I answered with a shotgun... heck yes I’d expect to go to jail.
Other than your deliberate insult, I don't quite understand your point above. I initially believed that if it were a white kid who had been chased off with a shot gun, nothing would have happened.
Now that you've told me this was an affluent white neighborhood, I now think they would have filed charges for any gun usage, regardless of how frivolous.
I originally thought this was about perceived racism. I now think it was about liberal advocacy of gun control and excessive punishment for gun owners/users. It may still have some elements of perceived racism in it, because liberals will incorporate more than one wedge issue if they see a means to do it.
In most normal places in the US, this would not have turned into a 4 to 10 felony. It would have probably been a fine and maybe a little time in the county.
Firefighter's good deeds also did not save him. He should have been a cop. They would have closed ranks and protected him. The DA wouldn't have even charged him.
If he didn't actually shoot someone, discharging a fire arm within city limits.
Sorry, not playing your game........
No, you're playing a different game. One in which you make up sh*t and expect other people to go along with it.
If he had shot the kid, the kid would have been killed or injured. Therefore he did not shoot the kid.
"...just view the video again..."
Tripping, stumble, misstep, potato potahtoe. You characterize it as a "lie" because you want to. It might be a lie, but it might also be an exaggeration or misspoke. According to what someone else said, it looked like he accidentally discharged the gun. Perhaps he did "trip" over something, or misstepped with his foot.
How about a little objectivity for a change? No one got shot, therefore no one was shot at.
<<If he had shot the kid, the kid would have been killed or injured. Therefore he did not shoot the kid.
He didn’t shoot the kid, he shot at the kid. While he was running away. After having knocked on his door.
What part of that do you not understand? It’s illegal in every state, even those with the Castle Doctrine in place.
This idiot was convicted of firing a handgun during a road rage incident back in 2004.
“A Warren police report reviewed by The Detroit News reveals Jeffrey C. Zeigler, then 39, was stopped and arrested by police after a 43-year-old Clawson man reported him as the motorist who fired a handgun at him on westbound Interstate 696 after the two men “flipped off” each other about 3 p.m. Dec. 13, 2004.”
So now this all makes more sense. Guy is a hothead and quick to brandish and fire his guns. Had he lost his 2nd Amendment rights at that point, this crap might not have happened.
<<Tripping, stumble, misstep, potato potahtoe. You characterize it as a “lie” because you want to. It might be a lie, but it might also be an exaggeration or misspoke. According to what someone else said, it looked like he accidentally discharged the gun. Perhaps he did “trip” over something, or misstepped with his foot.
<<How about a little objectivity for a change? No one got shot, therefore no one was shot at.
Dude you have some serious problems - no one got shot so no one got shot at?
You can’t be serious? And you call yourself a freeper?
There was no “accidentally discharged the gun” - there was deliberate aiming and shooting as seen on the perp’s home surveillance video.
When you are doing it with a shotgun.
Are you mentally challenged? Just view the video again - tis’ not that long.
Can't see the video. Browser won't play it.
He DELIBERATELY AIMS AND SHOOTS AT THE 14 YEAR OLD KID AS HE WAS RUNNING AWAY.
Didn't know the video sighted down his barrel. You can tell where he is aiming by the camera on his porch? Must be some camera. And the kid didn't get hit? Must be some lousy shot.
Maybe if I can see the video i'll agree with you, but from what i've got to work with, it seems ridiculous. Someone wants to kill someone with a shot gun, it's not terribly difficult. If he had missed, and fired again and again, then you've got a different situation.
Fired once, didn't hit? Wasn't trying to kill the kid.
<<Can’t see the video. Browser won’t play it.
That explains it. Willful ignorance and arguing for the sake of arguing.
I guess you won...
That’s what I get for not reading the whole thread. It wasn’t until he readily admitted he hadn’t viewed the video that I realized who I was dealing with....
Thanks for the clarification, friend.
"...So now this all makes more sense..."
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.