Man gets probation, house arrest for teaching teens a lesson!?!

[The B]

i couldn't fault anyone for calling the guy dumb. right or wrong, his dumbest move was getting caught.

if you're going to try to teach someone a lesson like that, keep your mouth shut about it later.

 

[Bark]

In no way,shape or form,do i condone what this guy did, and it sounds like bad judgement on his part,, but i wonder what the whole story is behind this. there must have been something that happened that set him off?
was there some kind of confrontaion with the teenagers that set him off?.

If he was not being threatened he had no right to pull his gun, don't care what set him off. Guys like this give gun owners a bad name.....then the court lets him off easy....go figure.

 

[SavageGerbil]

I think theres a word for removing someones property with the aid of a firearm, funny I didn't see it in his list of charges. This guy is twice lucky, I've known plenty of people who didn't want to let an age-restriction even if it did carry a heavy penalty keep them from carrying, not out of some macho BS that allows you to "teach teens/whoever a lesson" but to give themselves every chance possible of living to old age. This guys lucky he's not spending a long time in prison, or a short time on an embalming table. I'd imagine the latter would have been his outcome if he'd attempted this with many of us here.

Another thing, how many of us here HAVEN'T had the instructor state in our concealed carry class that if you carry a gun CARRY A CELL PHONE, which was the proper educational tool in this case, 3 little digits, even a cell phone with the service cut off can call 911, I carry a charged but shut off extra phone in my glove box just in case.

Anyways, long ramble, but point is, what a lucky moron.

 

[unionguy]

Guy was a moron.

 

[clearconscience]

That guy should have received jail time. What an idiot.

 

[james2562]

I think that the sentence was appropriate. Here is a guy whos mistake was to let his anger get the better of him. No jail time but probation is appropriate to a first offender. And since he can not be responsible with a firearm he cant have any more.

 

[onearmedswordsman]

The title of the thread makes it sound like you're surprised.

That he got 'victed, nah! It was more like in "what a stupid way to teach 'em a lesson!!! Did your dad teach you better???"

 

[The B]

I think that the sentence was appropriate. Here is a guy whos mistake was to let his anger get the better of him. No jail time but probation is appropriate to a first offender. And since he can not be responsible with a firearm he cant have any more.

+1... he's stupid, not a hardened criminal.

 

[gunnoob75]

I think that the sentence was appropriate. Here is a guy whos mistake was to let his anger get the better of him. No jail time but probation is appropriate to a first offender. And since he can not be responsible with a firearm he cant have any more.

+1... he's stupid, not a hardened criminal.

I agree as well.

+2

 

[Skid_McCoy]

He can still be used by each of those kids in civil court. The $500 is nice but agreed that was stupid. Double stupid to give the keys back and get caught cause of it.
x2

 

[ZachS]

He can still be used by each of those kids in civil court. The $500 is nice but agreed that was stupid. Double stupid to give the keys back and get caught cause of it.
x2

Only if he has enough $$$/insurance to make it worth the effort...

 

[Gunner3456]

I think that the sentence was appropriate. Here is a guy whos mistake was to let his anger get the better of him. No jail time but probation is appropriate to a first offender. And since he can not be responsible with a firearm he cant have any more.

+1... he's stupid, not a hardened criminal.

I'm so relieved. Since I have a clean record and I'm not a hardened criminal, I'm going to go rob a bank at gunpoint today, and hold the staff hostage. Hey, they should just let me off with a slap on the wrist if I get caught, right?

I'm just stupid so it doesn't count, right?

If that poor misunderstood guy had tried that on me, he and maybe even I would be dead now. But, it's no big deal, right?

I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

[SavageGerbil]

Gunner, as long as you give the money back to the bank's neighbors to return its all good...thats how it works now, right?

 

[4Freedom]

Lucky nobody got killed over something so stupid. You just don't go pointing guns and threatening people. He really deserves to serve some time in the slammer, the moron.

 

[Gunner3456]

Gunner, as long as you give the money back to the bank's neighbors to return its all good...thats how it works now, right?

Absolutely. Have some pity on me.

 

[The B]

I'm so relieved. Since I have a clean record and I'm not a hardened criminal, I'm going to go rob a bank at gunpoint today, and hold the staff hostage. Hey, they should just let me off with a slap on the wrist if I get caught, right?

I'm just stupid so it doesn't count, right?

If that poor misunderstood guy had tried that on me, he and maybe even I would be dead now. But, it's no big deal, right?

I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

trying to discredit your opposition through sarcasm just weakens your own argument.. if you can't do it with logic, it's time to rethink your position.

this guy's intent was not to rob anyone- therefor he didn't. his intent was to leave them stranded. then, presumably repenting his crime, he exposed himself to return the keys. his case was reviewed by a prosecutor who decided what to charge him with, and then by a judge who decided what to sentence him with. in a judicial system that usually throws the book at stupidity involving firearms, its refreshing to see leniency.

other things the story doesn't tell, but the court will take into account, is the mindset of the perpetrator at the time of the incident. it counts- and that's why courts take it into account. my guess is this guy would probably not behave in a manner like this on any normal day. i'm guessing, again, but i would imagine this incident probably followed a series of events in his life that finally led to a total, uncontrollable breakdown in reasoning. could be he'd just lost his job, lost his home to foreclosure, car is about to be repossessed, best friend is bubblegumming his wife, dog died the day before, and his accountant just informed him he owes $15k for 2009 income taxes. and now, here he is driving down the road, feeling like Job himself, maybe even in the middle of a King Lier-esque moment with metaphorical fists raised to the heavens. the camel can only take one more straw... and some little douche-bags cut him off and nearly kill him on the highway. ALL speculation, obviously, but there it is.

what purpose would be served by a harsher sentence? deterrence? no- he's not likely to behave like that again as it is. punishment? for what? scaring 4 teenagers? you shouldn't serve prison time for giving some probably deserving kids a scare. deterrence of others? other law-abiding gun owners already have plenty incentive to not misuse their guns- and the fact that this guy got in as much trouble as he did, lost his guns, and has to come up with $2k in restitution and check in with a probation officer for the next 2 years- is even more incentive not to.

in the spirit of transparency: i get irritated at people with holier-than-thou attitudes about stupidity. as though they're so smart, and so controlled that they'll never make a mistake or lose their temper. some degree of forgiveness is a good thing, gentlemen.

 

[Gunner3456]

trying to discredit your opposition through sarcasm just weakens your own argument.. if you can't do it with logic, it's time to rethink your position.

this guy's intent was not to rob anyone- therefor he didn't. his intent was to leave them stranded. then, presumably repenting his crime, he exposed himself to return the keys.

Taking keys at gunpoint is armed robbery. It doesn't matter what his "intent" was.

his case was reviewed by a prosecutor who decided what to charge him with, and then by a judge who decided what to sentence him with. in a judicial system that usually throws the book at stupidity involving firearms, its refreshing to see leniency.

Maybe to you. My view is that leniency is a cause of more crime.

other things the story doesn't tell, but the court will take into account, is the mindset of the perpetrator at the time of the incident. it counts- and that's why courts take it into account. my guess is this guy would probably not behave in a manner like this on any normal day.

I don't rob banks on a normal day, but just watch what happens on the day I do it.

i'm guessing, again,

You got that right.

but i would imagine

Keep imagining. The guy committed armed robbery and also held people at gunpoint - a federal crime of false imprisonment.

this incident probably followed a series of events in his life that finally led to a total, uncontrollable breakdown in reasoning. could be he'd just lost his job, lost his home to foreclosure, car is about to be repossessed, best friend is bubblegumming his wife, dog died the day before, and his accountant just informed him he owes $15k for 2009 income taxes. and now, here he is driving down the road, feeling like Job himself,

Oh the poor baby!

We've all had it rough at times and we're still responsible for our actions. If he can't control himself he should never be able to own another gun and he should be locked up for the safety of the rest of us.

maybe even in the middle of a King Lier-esque moment with metaphorical fists raised to the heavens. the camel can only take one more straw... and some little douche-bags cut him off and nearly kill him on the highway. ALL speculation, obviously, but there it is.

My imagination sees me shooting and killing the guy if he tries that on me.

what purpose would be served by a harsher sentence? deterrence? no- he's not likely to behave like that again as it is. punishment? for what? scaring 4 teenagers? you shouldn't serve prison time for giving some probably deserving kids a scare. deterrence of others? other law-abiding gun owners already have plenty incentive to not misuse their guns- and the fact that this guy got in as much trouble as he did, lost his guns, and has to come up with $2k in restitution and check in with a probation officer for the next 2 years- is even more incentive not to.

The "purpose" would be to get him off the streets so he couldn't do that to someone else the next time the "poor baby" has a bad day.

in the spirit of transparency: i get irritated at people with holier-than-thou attitudes about stupidity. as though they're so smart, and so controlled that they'll never make a mistake or lose their temper. some degree of forgiveness is a good thing, gentlemen.

It's not up to the police and the courts to forgive. It's up to them to enforce the law and protect the rest of us.

You are free to forgive some bastard who does that to you, but I want him off the streets.

Like I said, I'm sure I'll be forgiven the next time I commit armed robbery and false imprisonment.

Man, you are nuts.

 

[Phillyfan]

trying to discredit your opposition through sarcasm just weakens your own argument.. if you can't do it with logic, it's time to rethink your position.

this guy's intent was not to rob anyone- therefor he didn't. his intent was to leave them stranded. then, presumably repenting his crime, he exposed himself to return the keys. his case was reviewed by a prosecutor who decided what to charge him with, and then by a judge who decided what to sentence him with. in a judicial system that usually throws the book at stupidity involving firearms, its refreshing to see leniency.

other things the story doesn't tell, but the court will take into account, is the mindset of the perpetrator at the time of the incident. it counts- and that's why courts take it into account. my guess is this guy would probably not behave in a manner like this on any normal day. i'm guessing, again, but i would imagine this incident probably followed a series of events in his life that finally led to a total, uncontrollable breakdown in reasoning. could be he'd just lost his job, lost his home to foreclosure, car is about to be repossessed, best friend is bubblegumming his wife, dog died the day before, and his accountant just informed him he owes $15k for 2009 income taxes. and now, here he is driving down the road, feeling like Job himself, maybe even in the middle of a King Lier-esque moment with metaphorical fists raised to the heavens. the camel can only take one more straw... and some little douche-bags cut him off and nearly kill him on the highway. ALL speculation, obviously, but there it is.

what purpose would be served by a harsher sentence? deterrence? no- he's not likely to behave like that again as it is. punishment? for what? scaring 4 teenagers? you shouldn't serve prison time for giving some probably deserving kids a scare. deterrence of others? other law-abiding gun owners already have plenty incentive to not misuse their guns- and the fact that this guy got in as much trouble as he did, lost his guns, and has to come up with $2k in restitution and check in with a probation officer for the next 2 years- is even more incentive not to.

in the spirit of transparency: i get irritated at people with holier-than-thou attitudes about stupidity. as though they're so smart, and so controlled that they'll never make a mistake or lose their temper. some degree of forgiveness is a good thing, gentlemen.

OK, are you kidding me?! I don't care what crap this guy has gone through, I don't care if his dog died, his wife left him, and someone peed on his breakfast cereal while he wasn't looking. No matter how bad his day was or how bad things were going for him, THERE IS NO EXCUSE for what he did. And pointing a gun at someone, making them lay on the ground, and asking if they want to die is not simply "scarring" someone, it is threatening there life and terrorizing them. I cannot believe you would just chalk this up to a bad decision. This was premeditated (he followed them) bullbubblegum, and he should be held accountable.

 

[The B]

Like I said, I'm sure I'll be forgiven the next time I commit armed robbery and false imprisonment.

Man, you are nuts.

taking someone's keys for the purpose of preventing their ability to be a vehicular hazard, even at gunpoint, and someone who walks into a bank and takes money at gunpoint for the purpose of personal gain, do not equate- and obviously the prosecutor and judge agree. there's a phrase called the "spirit of the law," and it means, essentially, that you take into account what the individual was trying to accomplish. intent, therefor, DOES matter. there's no requirement to charge a person with a greater crime when a lesser suffices- and your opinion doesn't matter or change that.

as far as obfuscating my speculation that the perpetrator was under a high level of stress- as was obvious, and as you know, i presented that scenario as a consideration, not as a way to skirt responsibility. don't know where that idea came from, or why you tried to diminish my argument by using it.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE

again, nobody said there was... there is a HUGE difference between "extenuating circumstances" and an "excuse," i don't understand why people don't know that.

and he should be held accountable.

thats what his arrest, prosecution, conviction, fine, sentence, and destruction of his guns was... accountability.


---

both you guys should skim through this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extenuating_circumstances

 

[Gunner3456]

taking someone's keys for the purpose of preventing their ability to be a vehicular hazard, even at gunpoint, and someone who walks into a bank and takes money at gunpoint for the purpose of personal gain, do not equate- and obviously the prosecutor and judge agree. there's a phrase called the "spirit of the law," and it means, essentially, that you take into account what the individual was trying to accomplish. intent, therefor, DOES matter. there's no requirement to charge a person with a greater crime when a lesser suffices- and your opinion doesn't matter or change that.

You need to take a harder look at the legal meaning of "intent" and "spirit of the law." His intent was to commit armed robbery and hold people against their will at gunpoint. Nothing in the spirit of the law excuses that.

as far as obfuscating my speculation that the perpetrator was under a high level of stress- as was obvious, and as you know, i presented that scenario as a consideration, not as a way to skirt responsibility. don't know where that idea came from, or why you tried to diminish my argument by using it.

Because it doesn't matter. He was responsible for his own actions.

again, nobody said there was... there is a HUGE difference between "extenuating circumstances" and an "excuse," i don't understand why people don't know that.


I do know that. There were no extenuating circumstances. He robbed people at gunpoint and held them against their will.

thats what his arrest, prosecution, conviction, fine, sentence, and destruction of his guns was... accountability.

I still don't believe there was nearly enough accountability. My guess is that he plead out for a lessor sentence which saves the gov. a ton of money from going to trial. I think it's about money and jail crowding, not about what's right.


---

both you guys should skim through this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extenuating_circumstances

You should study the simple phrase "personal accountability."

You're still nuts.