- Messages
- 67
- Reactions
- 197
I betcha all in all it was not worth all the time the guy spent in court, with lawyers, detained, etc. Not to mention it probably cost him an armload of money. I have a hard time giving a big old stinker.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And for all that guy knew she was an accomplice of the scammers. At 85 he may have some level of dementia and or degraded senses. He was being victimized and whether the driver was involved or not wouldn't necessarily been known to the old fellow at time. She had something in her hands and he could have perceived it as a weapon. Lots of cops with younger minds and senses have done so. As somebody who supports very liberal stand your ground laws, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.I am certainly not defending this guys actions and based on what I saw he is most likely guilty of some legal level of killing.
Unfortunately a lot of older people have distorted views with regard to self defense and gun laws. I encounter many like this regularly and some believe they have the right to defend themselves, by any means regardless of the threat no matter how minimal, or if any. Some talk as though they are impervious to the law and it would not affect them.
Some of these people describe a 'higher power' they believe in will guide them, tell them 'what to do' and will ultimately protect them in the aftermath of whatever happens.
Wrong court case.And for all that guy knew she was an accomplice of the scammers. At 85 he may have some level of dementia and or degraded senses. He was being victimized and whether the driver was involved or not wouldn't necessarily been known to the old fellow at time. She had something in her hands and he could have perceived it as a weapon. Lots of cops with younger minds and senses have done so. As somebody who supports very liberal stand your ground laws, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Right........personal risk analysis does look different to older citizens.
When someone gets to the point they can no longer drive is it "sad"? Yes. Does it need to be done? YES. This was an example of someone who should NOT have had a gun. Is it sad? Yes. He will spend the rest of his days in prison, sad. This will be used by those who want more gun laws for me, also sad. Bottom line is he either should NOT have had a gun, and maybe not have been allowed to live unsupervised. Since he was some person is now dead over this.I am certainly not defending this guys actions and based on what I saw he is most likely guilty of some legal level of killing.
Unfortunately a lot of older people have distorted views with regard to self defense and gun laws. I encounter many like this regularly and some believe they have the right to defend themselves, by any means regardless of the threat no matter how minimal, or if any. Some talk as though they are impervious to the law and it would not affect them.
Some of these people describe a 'higher power' they believe in will guide them, tell them 'what to do' and will ultimately protect them in the aftermath of whatever happens.
Don't think so but thanks for checking.Wrong court case.
@RVTECH responded to a comment made by @Alexx1401 regarding scammer pick up driver getting shot by 85 year old scamming victim. I responded to @RVTECH regarding the same event.ok. Must have missed the connection about the scammer and something in their hand...
So.. You link this article? Sure as bubblegumt this is the one about the scammers... not the rancher.
THIS! The "justice system" has ALWAYS had some "issues" but, it used to be for the most part people would watch it "work". Sadly those with "money and power" have always had a "better" shake here. Looking around the world though never seem to see anyplace doing it "better". This all really changed to a shocking degree when those in power suddenly found themselves no longer able to always gaslight the vast majority of the population. As many began to really get scared by this they did a few things. Those in power have began to use the justice system as a weapon and it keeps getting worse. The only reason it "works" is those who are supposed to be "protected" by it allow this to happen. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg here with people who no longer have faith in the "system" when it comes to protecting them from crime. So of course some are going to just take "justice" in their own hands. This gets dangerous REAL damn fast as faith in the system starts to fall apart. I have LONG tried to tell the "we hate Cops" crowd who "think" they don't need them they have NO clue what they are blowing hot air about. Our VERY comfortable society only works with justice working as it was designed. Humans have the capacity to turn into shocking animals if this breaks down. Anyone who has ever seen it is never the same again after.I think more to the point of the original post, this is a case of the legal system attempting to make an example of someone they think of as a "vigilante." In doing so, they overreached and the evidence was not strong enough to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) to the jury that the rancher was the one who shot the trespasser.
If they had found the bullet and matched it to his gun, it would have been a good case, but they didn't. In a gang-related shooting, the case would not have been brought, because there wasn't enough evidence to be worth the time and expense of prosecution. In the case of a vigilante, just the publicity of putting the old fellow through the wringer perhaps discourages persons from taking action themselves. That was the motivation for pursuing the case - discouraging vigilantism.
Our whole justice system relies on the general population having faith that the system will do the right thing and be both fair and objective. Once the public loses faith, the system is crippled. There are two ways to deal with such a failure. First, make it clear that the system will be fair, objective, and treat everyone the same. Second, just use the system to destroy anyone that goes vigilante, pulling out all the stops.
If you don't do the first, the second has a bad look.
That movie was great writing and acting. Always did love Charles. The best part of that movie was when he had been doing his "thing" for a while and those in power were flummoxed that while they could not catch him crime stats were going the right direction in a HUGE way. We see this play out today all the time. Towns where crime is not promoted have less crime. The scum tend to not be the brightest bulbs but they still gravitate to the places they can get away with it. Of course the real world problem with this fantasy is if it really starts to happen it does not take long to start to get real out of hand, real bad.
Wow. That really is a raw deal. I would agree. If one jury was nearly unanimously willing to acquit, it would be a massive uphill battle trying to get another jury to completely flip the opposite direction.It looks like 7 of the 8 jurors wanted to acquit, but one wanted to convict on at least one charge. This would indicate that a retrial would would also be unlikely to convict.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-...uror-blocked-acquittal-state-weighs-2nd-trial