Missouri river floater shooting verdict

Missouri river floater shooting verdict (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 5:04:57 PM)
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

thompsonx -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 5:12:38 PM)
The only reason it took them(the jury) two hours(to convict) is so they could get the county to pay for lunch.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 5:34:30 PM)
Seems like obviously the right decision. I wonder if the fact that the incident did not actually occur on his property was relevant to the prosecution's case? If he had been on his property and they had been trespassing and refusing to leave what would his rights have been? Does anyone who has been following this more closely know the answer to this? Just curious.

kdsub -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 8:22:56 PM)
Missouri does not have a stand your ground law. They have what is called a Castle Doctrine that only covers an actual residence or vehicle only not the surrounding property. So even if this did take place on his property it would have made no difference under the law. Even under the Castle doctrine it states that if the property owner is the initiator of aggression then he cannot use deadly force. We had page after page of gun nuts on collarme trying to justify this mans actions. Notice how this thread has only a few posts where the original had many pages...as all threads like it. They don't like it when people take a stand against irresponsible gun owners that claim this murderer's actions were justified in using a gun to take a life. Butch

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 8:29:00 PM)
It was baffling at the time. This guy was clearly in the wrong and clearly was always going to be convicted. If the gun guys were at all decent and honorable they'd own up to the nonsense they tried to peddle and apologize here.

SadistDave -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 8:49:41 PM)
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-

thompsonx -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 8:57:29 PM)
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. That was not your opinion before 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. Actually if you had read the link he was convicted because he was more than a hundred yards away from his property.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 9:00:47 PM)
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.

thompsonx -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 9:03:16 PM)
Since nobody argued for him to get off nobody owes an apology. That is nothing but a plate of dog turds.

BamaD -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 9:10:36 PM)
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.

TheHeretic -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 9:31:10 PM)
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 You are full of shit, Butch. Have you been reading too many of Ken's threads, and are starting to link to things that do not say what you claim they do? Through a thread that was active for a week, I saw one poster - one - who was saying manslaughter might be the more appropriate charge, and to wait for more facts. One other agreed that the facts were not all in. Both thought the shooter was guilty of something. I do have a few of the participants on that thread behind the hide button, but I'm doubting Ron was screaming for rafter blood.

SadistDave -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 9:46:50 PM)
ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. That was not your opinion before 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. Actually if you had read the link he was convicted because he was more than a hundred yards away from his property. The only opinion I expressed 10 months ago was that it should have been easy to defend the shooter. If, as you so foolishly believe, the shooter was convicted over the property line issue alone, then there really is no reason to revisit the story at all. -SD-

cloudboy -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 9:51:37 PM)
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.

lovmuffin -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/15/2014 11:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic 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 You are full of shit, Butch. Have you been reading too many of Ken's threads, and are starting to link to things that do not say what you claim they do? Through a thread that was active for a week, I saw one poster - one - who was saying manslaughter might be the more appropriate charge, and to wait for more facts. One other agreed that the facts were not all in. Both thought the shooter was guilty of something. I do have a few of the participants on that thread behind the hide button, but I'm doubting Ron was screaming for rafter blood. No shit, I skimmed through the first 3 pages and none of the usual Second Amendment defenders were defending the shooter. There were reports that the shooter was attacked by a rock welding rafter, that he tried to grab the shooters gun and speculating whether or not he may have been justified based on that. There was a lot of arguing over property line, right of way laws along navigable waterways in MO. I certainly didn't defend the shooter but if the gunidiots are happy over the outcome, I'm tickled plum ta death[8D]

DomKen -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/16/2014 2:45:49 AM)
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.

thishereboi -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/16/2014 3:53:37 AM)
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.

lovmuffin -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/16/2014 6:19:00 AM)
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.

Yachtie -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/16/2014 6:44:02 AM)
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.*

thompsonx -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/16/2014 8:14:02 AM)
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. Were you the only poster in 28 pages?

thompsonx -> RE: Missouri river floater shooting verdict (5/16/2014 8:17:47 AM)
ORIGINAL: SadistDave The only opinion I expressed 10 months ago was that it should have been easy to defend the shooter. Clearly it was not If, as you so foolishly believe, the shooter was convicted over the property line issue alone, then there really is no reason to revisit the story at all. The op says so. His defense (he had several)that he was protecting his property kinda fell apart when the surveyors proved that he was more than 100 yards away from his property.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625