I am sure that you brought a saw along. You did, right?Originally Posted by blues
I am sure that you brought a saw along. You did, right?
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
As expected… Convictions all around. My only question was would the be some flavor of “murder” or some flavor of “manslaughter”…
So for the legal scholars amount us, how do we get 4 separate counts of felony murder with only one person murdered?
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
Warning: Not a Legal Scholar. I believe each felony they were accused of, such as false imprisonment or aggravated assault, would carry its own corresponding felony murder charge. Four felony charges each, not counting the malice murder, would get four counts of felony murder because they caused the death of the victim while committing that crime.
As expected… Convictions all around. My only question was would the be some flavor of “murder” or some flavor of “manslaughter”…
So for the legal scholars amount us, how do we get 4 separate counts of felony murder with only one person murdered?
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
A sigh of relief I think for the most part in GA. What's brain melting to me is the thought that the 3 convicted killers are not lifetime feral men with a career in the criminal underworld. They're virtually "normies" that thought this was just a normal thing to do. Speaks volumes I think. How could it not? Terrifying and depressing.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I think it’s a stretch to say they thought it was a normal thing to do.
My guess is that none of the three went looking to kill anybody. IIRC there were documented thefts in the area, whether the victim was involved or not, and they went looking to out a top to it.
Not defending any of the actions either direction, just saying I doubt that three normies left the house looking to kill someone.
ETA:
and with that said, I hope that some of the folks that like to say they’d do this or that in such and such situation think king and hard about all of this. We’ve all heard the bravado from various gun doods in person and online for years. Christ I was probably one of them at some point in my past.
But people don’t think about “what’s the best and/or worst thing that could come from this?” I get being mad that your neighborhood is being “victimized”. Maybe even that the cops “aren’t doing anything about it”. But the lesson learned here for anyone that finds themselves in a similar, or even tangentially similar, situation is “how do you think that’s going to go?” And “what’s the best possible outcome? What’s the worst? What’s the likelihood of either? And what does it matter?”
If the shooters had stopped and thought about any of that, they’d likely have never left the house. “I’m gonna…” stop, think, call the cops, go back to watching tv and drinking beer.
Last edited by rob_s; 11-25-2021 at 06:44 AM.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
Which is why I espouse the rule of only getting involved with something when you're willing to shoot or be shot over it. Any voluntary conflict that does not meet those requirements are to be avoided, because you never know how it'll escalate but if you are intervening you know at least one party has a gun...
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I learned of a great concept in a NASA documentary awhile back: awfulizing.
Helpful in “should I go charging out of the house with a gun” scenarios, and so many more.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
If I recall correctly (and I might not), the initial reaction and case handling by local LE and prosecutor was pretty much that yeah, this is a normal thing to do. A very unenthusiastic or lazy investigation and great reluctance for the prosecutor to take it anywhere. It wasn't until word got out and State LE got involved that it went somewhere. Based on local culture, community standards, who knew who and all that, maybe it was tolerable behavior.
I'd go with this, except that this time the shooters were held accountable.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
Having lawyers from the Jim Crow rhetorical era doesn't help. Long, dirty toe nails? Colonel Sanders? Black Pastors? WTF. Good verdicts in all three cases.
Also a point I made before, what is it with defense lawyers have crazy hair styles? Bride of Frankenstein locks, an octopus of hair on your head?
Granted the Rittenhouse DA went Bozo a few times.
Reply With Quote