quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm sure it's mostly because there's really not much to discuss. Some dumbass got himself killed and another dumbass went to prison. Dumbass 2 going to jail doesn't make dumbass 1 any less of a dumbass or any less dead.

I think it's an interesting case. I thought so 10 months ago. Now it's over and almost nothing discussed 10 months ago in that other thread had anything at all to do with the way the case was apparently presented in court. According to your link the decision basically came down to the boaters word against the shooters, and some evidence that the jury didn't find credible about the shooters story. That is how jury trials work.

I admit, I thought this should have been a no brainer for the defense. On the other hand I was right about Zimmerman getting off for whacking the thug that viciously attacked him. Win some; lose some. In the meantime, life continues for those of us not stupid enough to get ourselves killed.

-SD-

I just went over the old thread, and contrary to the op's memory nobody was saying that the shooting was justified. The only debate was as to what charge would go through easiest.
At his age 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter would all amount to a life sentence.
Several anti gun types pretended that arguing for anything short of demanding 1st degree was arguing for him to get off. Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology.

except you flirted with doing so over and over. It was obvious and disgusting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology.

That is nothing but a plate of dog turds.

I know that I never said the shooting was justified and in fact stated repeatedly that it was not so try bulling someone else.

Actually I think you are one of the only ones who doesn't have him on hide so he really doesn't have a lot of choices.

as to the op. Personally I am glad they locked him up. I would say I hope this sends a message to other gun owners to think before they actually shoot someone, but if the idea that you might get killed hasn't stopped anyone from wandering around where they shouldn't be at night, I doubt this will affect anyone either. For some reason people think shit like this will never happen to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm sure it's mostly because there's really not much to discuss. Some dumbass got himself killed and another dumbass went to prison. Dumbass 2 going to jail doesn't make dumbass 1 any less of a dumbass or any less dead.

I think it's an interesting case. I thought so 10 months ago. Now it's over and almost nothing discussed 10 months ago in that other thread had anything at all to do with the way the case was apparently presented in court. According to your link the decision basically came down to the boaters word against the shooters, and some evidence that the jury didn't find credible about the shooters story. That is how jury trials work.

I admit, I thought this should have been a no brainer for the defense. On the other hand I was right about Zimmerman getting off for whacking the thug that viciously attacked him. Win some; lose some. In the meantime, life continues for those of us not stupid enough to get ourselves killed.

-SD-

I just went over the old thread, and contrary to the op's memory nobody was saying that the shooting was justified. The only debate was as to what charge would go through easiest.
At his age 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter would all amount to a life sentence.
Several anti gun types pretended that arguing for anything short of demanding 1st degree was arguing for him to get off. Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology.

except you flirted with doing so over and over. It was obvious and disgusting.

If you actually read that thread again you might have noticed the shooter claimed he was attacked with a rock. Had that been true, it might have been a reason to shoot. The whole stupid thread was started just after the incident and was entirely based on speculation. You didn't know all the facts at the time and neither did Bama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
I would say I hope this sends a message to other gun owners to think before they actually shoot someone,

Time for a Darwin Award -


Deputies have charged an 18-year-old South Carolina woman with the fatal shooting of a male friend who had donned a bulletproof vest and allegedly asked her to "shoot me," according to local media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Some time ago we had a discussion…HERE… on a shooting of a Meramec river floater in Missouri. I am revisiting this story because there has been a verdict. I hope all those who defending this mans right to not retreat and defend his property pay attention to what happened to this man… You could be next ... Check THIS LINK.

This area is about as conservative and pro gun as you can get in Missouri and I am proud of them for making the right decision... they are not fanatics as some here on CM.

Butch

quote:

Defense attorney Michael Bert pointed to testimony that Dart was drunk when he was killed.

“(Crocker) stood his ground, he had no duty to retreat,” Bert told the jury, adding that officials ignore bad behavior on the river because it brings in a lot of money to the area.

“Send a message out to the community that we are done with condoning the party atmosphere down here,” Bert said. “What happened to the days when families could go down to the river? ... Enough is enough.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Some time ago we had a discussion…HERE… on a shooting of a Meramec river floater in Missouri. I am revisiting this story because there has been a verdict. I hope all those who defending this mans right to not retreat and defend his property pay attention to what happened to this man… You could be next ... Check THIS LINK.

This area is about as conservative and pro gun as you can get in Missouri and I am proud of them for making the right decision... they are not fanatics as some here on CM.

Butch

When reading the article, I found the defense attorney's argument somewhat interesting:

quote:

Defense attorney Michael Bert pointed to testimony that Dart was drunk when he was killed.

“(Crocker) stood his ground, he had no duty to retreat,” Bert told the jury, adding that officials ignore bad behavior on the river because it brings in a lot of money to the area.

“Send a message out to the community that we are done with condoning the party atmosphere down here,” Bert said. “What happened to the days when families could go down to the river? ... Enough is enough.”

"Send a message"? I'm not familiar with the area, so I'm not sure how much "bad behavior" there actually is, but this seems a bit over the top. And who's going to bring their families if society condones shooting people for "bad behavior"?

If he's advocating more police patrols to curb all this bad behavior, that may be one thing, but I don't see how he can make this kind of argument. It almost seems kind of chilling in a way. I hope this guy doesn't ever run for politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

This stands apart from other shootings because there were other eye witnesses to the event and the shooter could not concoct a bogus, self defense, fear of my life claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm sure it's mostly because there's really not much to discuss. Some dumbass got himself killed and another dumbass went to prison. Dumbass 2 going to jail doesn't make dumbass 1 any less of a dumbass or any less dead.

I think it's an interesting case. I thought so 10 months ago. Now it's over and almost nothing discussed 10 months ago in that other thread had anything at all to do with the way the case was apparently presented in court. According to your link the decision basically came down to the boaters word against the shooters, and some evidence that the jury didn't find credible about the shooters story. That is how jury trials work.

I admit, I thought this should have been a no brainer for the defense. On the other hand I was right about Zimmerman getting off for whacking the thug that viciously attacked him. Win some; lose some. In the meantime, life continues for those of us not stupid enough to get ourselves killed.

-SD-

I just went over the old thread, and contrary to the op's memory nobody was saying that the shooting was justified. The only debate was as to what charge would go through easiest.
At his age 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter would all amount to a life sentence.
Several anti gun types pretended that arguing for anything short of demanding 1st degree was arguing for him to get off. Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology.

except you flirted with doing so over and over. It was obvious and disgusting.

No I didn't, I pointed out problems for the prosecution but repeatedly stated that he was guilty vainly
hoping that idiots like you would realize I wasn't defending him. But you and others desperately wanted someone to defend his actions so you could brand all defenders of the 2nd as wackos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm sure it's mostly because there's really not much to discuss. Some dumbass got himself killed and another dumbass went to prison. Dumbass 2 going to jail doesn't make dumbass 1 any less of a dumbass or any less dead.

I think it's an interesting case. I thought so 10 months ago. Now it's over and almost nothing discussed 10 months ago in that other thread had anything at all to do with the way the case was apparently presented in court. According to your link the decision basically came down to the boaters word against the shooters, and some evidence that the jury didn't find credible about the shooters story. That is how jury trials work.

I admit, I thought this should have been a no brainer for the defense. On the other hand I was right about Zimmerman getting off for whacking the thug that viciously attacked him. Win some; lose some. In the meantime, life continues for those of us not stupid enough to get ourselves killed.

-SD-

I just went over the old thread, and contrary to the op's memory nobody was saying that the shooting was justified. The only debate was as to what charge would go through easiest.
At his age 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter would all amount to a life sentence.
Several anti gun types pretended that arguing for anything short of demanding 1st degree was arguing for him to get off. Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology.

except you flirted with doing so over and over. It was obvious and disgusting.

No I didn't, I pointed out problems for the prosecution but repeatedly stated that he was guilty vainly
hoping that idiots like you would realize I wasn't defending him. But you and others desperately wanted someone to defend his actions so you could brand all defenders of the 2nd as wackos.

Claimed it wasn't murder
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4505186
Claim that you believe the landowner was justified
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4505459
Again You claim it wasn't murder
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4506342

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm sure it's mostly because there's really not much to discuss. Some dumbass got himself killed and another dumbass went to prison. Dumbass 2 going to jail doesn't make dumbass 1 any less of a dumbass or any less dead.

I think it's an interesting case. I thought so 10 months ago. Now it's over and almost nothing discussed 10 months ago in that other thread had anything at all to do with the way the case was apparently presented in court. According to your link the decision basically came down to the boaters word against the shooters, and some evidence that the jury didn't find credible about the shooters story. That is how jury trials work.

I admit, I thought this should have been a no brainer for the defense. On the other hand I was right about Zimmerman getting off for whacking the thug that viciously attacked him. Win some; lose some. In the meantime, life continues for those of us not stupid enough to get ourselves killed.

-SD-

I just went over the old thread, and contrary to the op's memory nobody was saying that the shooting was justified. The only debate was as to what charge would go through easiest.
At his age 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter would all amount to a life sentence.
Several anti gun types pretended that arguing for anything short of demanding 1st degree was arguing for him to get off. Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology.

except you flirted with doing so over and over. It was obvious and disgusting.

No I didn't, I pointed out problems for the prosecution but repeatedly stated that he was guilty vainly
hoping that idiots like you would realize I wasn't defending him. But you and others desperately wanted someone to defend his actions so you could brand all defenders of the 2nd as wackos.

Claimed it wasn't murder
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4505186
Why do you provide links when you know they prove you are lying. He said in that post that he thought the guy would get manslaughter. You do realize that manslaughter means you murdered someone, right?

One guy threatened him with a rock another tried to grab his gun, this may not be a slam dunk for murder.
Manslaughter on the other hand.

Claim that you believe the landowner was justified
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4505459

And another lie, the first thing he said was he wasn't going to say the landowner was justified.


I am not locking myself into saying the landowner was justified, but in the situation he had to think they were going to hurt or kill him. Firing the warning shots looks bad and didn't help any but it used to be that you were required to fire a warning shot if threatened.



Again You claim it wasn't murder
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4506342

And yet one more example of your inability to tell the truth. Manslaughter is murder.

Hadn't found that one before.
A ranger should have known that trying to push the gun away would escalate things.
If the other guy went into the woods he had moved away from public property.
Again, and I don't know how many times I will have to say this I expect manslaughter.
There is no indication he went down there to kill anyone.
The killing was triggered by the action of the dead man, you cannot dismiss him trying to take the gun, either away or away from his friend.
None of this exonerates Crocker but it does change things a little.
I expect still more to come out, not ready to pluck the chickens yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You repeatedly defended his actions and said he was guilty of manslaughter at worst. I gave you many opportunities to call acknowledge that he had committed murder. I even showed you his confession after the probable cause hearing which removed any chance he was ever going to get less than 2nd degree. But you continued to insist the man was going to get at most manslaughter. You even tried to argue that he had a case for self defense.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508919
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4511832

You see Missouri may be sliding down hill but it isn't yet Florida and of course this time the crazy gun nut shot a white guy. Jury barely needed to sit down to deliberate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm sure it's mostly because there's really not much to discuss. Some dumbass got himself killed and another dumbass went to prison. Dumbass 2 going to jail doesn't make dumbass 1 any less of a dumbass or any less dead.

I think it's an interesting case. I thought so 10 months ago. Now it's over and almost nothing discussed 10 months ago in that other thread had anything at all to do with the way the case was apparently presented in court. According to your link the decision basically came down to the boaters word against the shooters, and some evidence that the jury didn't find credible about the shooters story. That is how jury trials work.

I admit, I thought this should have been a no brainer for the defense. On the other hand I was right about Zimmerman getting off for whacking the thug that viciously attacked him. Win some; lose some. In the meantime, life continues for those of us not stupid enough to get ourselves killed.

-SD-

I just went over the old thread, and contrary to the op's memory nobody was saying that the shooting was justified. The only debate was as to what charge would go through easiest.
At his age 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter would all amount to a life sentence.
Several anti gun types pretended that arguing for anything short of demanding 1st degree was arguing for him to get off. Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology.

except you flirted with doing so over and over. It was obvious and disgusting.

No I didn't, I pointed out problems for the prosecution but repeatedly stated that he was guilty vainly
hoping that idiots like you would realize I wasn't defending him. But you and others desperately wanted someone to defend his actions so you could brand all defenders of the 2nd as wackos.

Claimed it wasn't murder
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4505186
Why do you provide links when you know they prove you are lying. He said in that post that he thought the guy would get manslaughter. You do realize that manslaughter means you murdered someone, right?

One guy threatened him with a rock another tried to grab his gun, this may not be a slam dunk for murder.
Manslaughter on the other hand.

Claim that you believe the landowner was justified
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4505459

And another lie, the first thing he said was he wasn't going to say the landowner was justified.


I am not locking myself into saying the landowner was justified, but in the situation he had to think they were going to hurt or kill him. Firing the warning shots looks bad and didn't help any but it used to be that you were required to fire a warning shot if threatened.



Again You claim it wasn't murder
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4506342

And yet one more example of your inability to tell the truth. Manslaughter is murder.

Hadn't found that one before.
A ranger should have known that trying to push the gun away would escalate things.
If the other guy went into the woods he had moved away from public property.
Again, and I don't know how many times I will have to say this I expect manslaughter.
There is no indication he went down there to kill anyone.
The killing was triggered by the action of the dead man, you cannot dismiss him trying to take the gun, either away or away from his friend.
None of this exonerates Crocker but it does change things a little.
I expect still more to come out, not ready to pluck the chickens yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You repeatedly defended his actions and said he was guilty of manslaughter at worst. I gave you many opportunities to call acknowledge that he had committed murder. I even showed you his confession after the probable cause hearing which removed any chance he was ever going to get less than 2nd degree. But you continued to insist the man was going to get at most manslaughter. You even tried to argue that he had a case for self defense.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508919
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4511832

You see Missouri may be sliding down hill but it isn't yet Florida and of course this time the crazy gun nut shot a white guy. Jury barely needed to sit down to deliberate.

I won't say you are lying because your not bright enough to make something up.
I repeatedly said that manslaughter was a slam dunk and easier to prove than murder.
I also repeatedly said that I didn't believe for a moment that he should walk.
No matter how bad you want me to have said he wasn't guilty that doesn't make it so .

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You repeatedly defended his actions and said he was guilty of manslaughter at worst. I gave you many opportunities to call acknowledge that he had committed murder. I even showed you his confession after the probable cause hearing which removed any chance he was ever going to get less than 2nd degree. But you continued to insist the man was going to get at most manslaughter. You even tried to argue that he had a case for self defense.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508919
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4511832

You see Missouri may be sliding down hill but it isn't yet Florida and of course this time the crazy gun nut shot a white guy. Jury barely needed to sit down to deliberate.

I won't say you are lying because your not bright enough to make something up.
I repeatedly said that manslaughter was a slam dunk and easier to prove than murder.
I also repeatedly said that I didn't believe for a moment that he should walk.
No matter how bad you want me to have said he wasn't guilty that doesn't make it so .

You kept saying manslaughter and I repeatedly told you there was no case for it. I told you this was 2nd degree murder at minimum. Do you even understand what the difference is between manslaughter and murder?

What was he charged with? What was he convicted of? Did you notice the jury barely even sat down to deliberate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You repeatedly defended his actions and said he was guilty of manslaughter at worst. I gave you many opportunities to call acknowledge that he had committed murder. I even showed you his confession after the probable cause hearing which removed any chance he was ever going to get less than 2nd degree. But you continued to insist the man was going to get at most manslaughter. You even tried to argue that he had a case for self defense.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4508919
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4511832

You see Missouri may be sliding down hill but it isn't yet Florida and of course this time the crazy gun nut shot a white guy. Jury barely needed to sit down to deliberate.

I won't say you are lying because your not bright enough to make something up.
I repeatedly said that manslaughter was a slam dunk and easier to prove than murder.
I also repeatedly said that I didn't believe for a moment that he should walk.
No matter how bad you want me to have said he wasn't guilty that doesn't make it so .

You kept saying manslaughter and I repeatedly told you there was no case for it. I told you this was 2nd degree murder at minimum. Do you even understand what the difference is between manslaughter and murder?

What was he charged with? What was he convicted of? Did you notice the jury barely even sat down to deliberate?

Yes I did, I noted all of that.
And yes I am well aware of the difference between Manslaughter and murder.
Now as then you miss the point that saying he should be convicted of manslaughter is a far
cry from saying he should walk.
You are also too stupid to understand that manslaughter would be a life sentence for him at his age.
You are also too stupid to remember that years after another trial you still insist that even though there was no case there should have been a conviction.
You can't even suggest that I be contrite because the jury put a different name on the life sentence until you recant on the other trial when the jury came back innocent on all counts.