'Nother Bad Neighbor Story - Fatal Shooting Over Lawn Mowing

[ruffdog]

We once live in times that most people worked to make situations better. We now live in times that the majority of people would rather work to escalate conflicts into all out wars. Why? We all have a choice, we can make a situation either better or worse. What kind of world do you want to live in?

 

[Steppenwolfe]

We once live in times that most people worked to make situations better. We now live in times that the majority of people would rather work to escalate conflicts into all out wars. Why? We all have a choice, we can make a situation either better or worse. What kind of world do you want to live in?[/QUOTE]

One without people would be rather nice...:cool2:

 

[Doofy]

We once live in times that most people worked to make situations better. We now live in times that the majority of people would rather work to escalate conflicts into all out wars. Why? We all have a choice, we can make a situation either better or worse. What kind of world do you want to live in?[/QUOTE]

One without people would be rather nice...:cool2:

Or, one where Justice (Punishment) fits the Crime! (notice: I said nothing about bleeding-heart Liberals)

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Or, one where Justice (Punishment) fits the Crime! (notice: I said nothing about bleeding-heart Liberals)

I agree... Lock him up! :thumbsup:

 

[dodge man]

Its been several years ago but a town about an hour away a deputy was serving a restraining order. He shot the deputy and then went over to the neighbor who got the restraining order and shot him also. Two dead people and what exactly good does a restraining order do?

 

[Jstpssng]

When someone repeatedly threatens to kill you it's not extreme. If they were just arguing I would agree. This is the problem, people defend the rights of crazy or irresponsible people to have firearms or forearms and it brings the rest of us down with them. If he threatened me like that I would have a restraining order for documentation purposes, and would not confront him. Part of the job of the police is to prevent escalation in situations like this. If you threaten to kill people, not just have firearms for protection, then you are a risk to society. I don't believe in protecting these peoples rights, because if the crazy guy was killed, then the other guy would be looking a charges. That happens all the time. If you really think you have the right to defend yourself and your property without recourse afterwards, you are mistaken. We have laws, but as shown in recent years, they are not always followed, and not always protecting you like you think.

Read your words which he quoted... paying attention to the word in bold print.

 

[Molalla1]

I agree... Lock him up! :thumbsup:

Hi :wave: Steppenwolfe.

 

[Industrial Toys]

People fail to realize that the incident, whatever it may be, you are involved with, might just be the straw that breaks the camels back. Yours or his.

 

[Alan W.]

I must be missing something here. An individual is deemed a possible danger to himself or others so they take his guns and all is good? Why isnt the individual taken instead, thats like pulling a drunk driver over and taking the vehicle but leaving the driver.

 

[Sigarms]

My worst problem is a neighbor who can't take care of his one dog and cat, then he goes and gets another dog and cat when he can't take care of the first two. Perhaps I'm lucky.

 

[Jstpssng]

I must be missing something here. An individual is deemed a possible danger to himself or others so they take his guns and all is good? Why isnt the individual taken instead, thats like pulling a drunk driver over and taking the vehicle but leaving the driver.

There you go again, applying logic to the story.

My worst problem is a neighbor who can't take care of his one dog and cat, then he goes and gets another dog and cat when he can't take care of the first two. Perhaps I'm lucky.

That's not unusual. I was at the pound one day, before I got my dog, and there was a family in there getting free dog food. While they were there they saw a dog they really liked and were talking about taking it home. They couldn't even feed the one that they had...

 

[wheelbuilder]

People fail to realize that the incident, whatever it may be, you are involved with, might just be the straw that breaks the camels back. Yours or his.

Bingo ! These stories always seem to have a string of odd events that happened first, but not always seen by the person at the end of the story. Perfectly predictable, IF you have the whole story.

 

[cqaigy2]

I must be missing something here. An individual is deemed a possible danger to himself or others so they take his guns and all is good? Why isnt the individual taken instead, thats like pulling a drunk driver over and taking the vehicle but leaving the driver.

Not disagreeing so much, but i'd imagine the legal hurdle to deprive a person of their liberty, is and should be, IMO, much high than depriving them of property. Of course, that doesn't stop them from acquiring another vehicle or weapon of choice, though both may be illegal to do.

 

[wheelbuilder]

Not disagreeing so much, but i'd imagine the legal hurdle to deprive a person of their liberty, is and should be, IMO, much high than depriving them of property. Of course, that doesn't stop them from acquiring another vehicle or weapon of choice, though both may be illegal to do.

If it's illegal for them to take one action, and they do so, they're just as likely to break several law's. This is why telling the police officer you were only going a few over the speed limit is a bad idea. You admit to breaking the law, then it is just a matter of degrees.

 

[Industrial Toys]

Seve Lehto goes into that in one video. "Do you know how fast your were going" or " do you know why I pulled you over" What utterly STUPID questions. For one thing, You are NOT a mind reader! The answer to those questions always has to be NO!

 

[radios1]

Not disagreeing so much, but i'd imagine the legal hurdle to deprive a person of their liberty, is and should be, IMO, much high than depriving them of property. Of course, that doesn't stop them from acquiring another vehicle or weapon of choice, though both may be illegal to do.

WHY should the second amendment, which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and btw, "the people" means just like in the beginning of the constitution, and the rest of it, it means ALL of the people, else we could have exclusions of some people from having equal rights that the rest are guaranteed, mean anything less than the rest of the constitution??.. think about that one very hard!.. are some of "the people" not of which the constitution speaks??.. at one time slaves were considered not of "the people" how about that one..

 

[Jstpssng]

WHY should the second amendment, which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and btw, "the people" means just like in the beginning of the constitution, and the rest of it, it means ALL of the people, else we could have exclusions of some people from having equal rights that the rest are guaranteed, mean anything less than the rest of the constitution??.. think about that one very hard!.. are some of "the people" not of which the constitution speaks??.. at one time slaves were considered not of "the people" how about that one..

Do you think that a convicted murderer should be able to get out of prison, walk into a gunshop and buy any firearm that he wants?

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Hi :wave: Steppenwolfe.

Hey you old coot... How you doing Brother?

 

[Steppenwolfe]

WHY should the second amendment, which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and btw, "the people" means just like in the beginning of the constitution, and the rest of it, it means ALL of the people, else we could have exclusions of some people from having equal rights that the rest are guaranteed, mean anything less than the rest of the constitution??.. think about that one very hard!.. are some of "the people" not of which the constitution speaks??.. at one time slaves were considered not of "the people" how about that one..

Actually... of the people pretty much referred to wealthy, white, land owners almost exclusively. We have never been a nation of equality.

 

[Molalla1]

Hey you old coot... How you doing Brother?

Fair to middling and you?