Hunting Forum

Charlie, I'm too old and decrepit to use my fists anymore, that's why I carry a gun! Back in the days, when I could use my fists, I never felt the need to carry, other than when I was a constable and was required to carry. But even back then, I'd just beitch slap a perp (even a drunk as I was slapping the cuffs on their azz), rather than shoot 'em!!!!!!

Ck; issue ended. I think we said/meant some of the same things, but some are better than others at putting in text form. And it is too hard to sort ALL the details/thoughts that go into it and make one's point fully understandable to all that read it. Can that be agreed upon? Let's just move on with the water under the bridge.

RT, I know what you mean, all the around.

J, I must agree. And as far as you pounding somones head in, do what you feel is right, it is no skin off my back. Just do it so it looks like it happen in the accident. Don't have any wittness's, stop before the police get there, don't make them stop you. Hope your rage is not such as you might take a swing, or accidently hit somone trying to stop you. You could go to jail for assult, of the drunk, and if you happen to strike a public offical a second charge added. If you are arrested for assult, you will have an arrest record for assult. Try to buy a gun with that pending. A Judge may order the surender of guns you own, until it goes to court. You say they will take your guns when they pry them out of your cold dead hands. I would hate to see your name in the media, crazed gunman killed in shoot out with police, after Judge orders surender of his guns, pending the outcome of an assult charge and assult of a public offical. The media is only going to tell the part that best fits their agena. So more than likely you will be in the crazed gunman catigory. An eye for an eye , is a good thing til someone wants your eye. Turning the other cheek, can keep you out of jail. But to each his own, fresh meat in jail as I understand it is a good thing. They don't want you to turn the other cheek, just turn around.

Posted By ckell on 27 Dec 2012 09:31 PM
RT, I know what you mean, all the around.

J, I must agree. And as far as you pounding somones head in, do what you feel is right, it is no skin off my back. Just do it so it looks like it happen in the accident. Don't have any wittness's, stop before the police get there, don't make them stop you. Hope your rage is not such as you might take a swing, or accidently hit somone trying to stop you. You could go to jail for assult, of the drunk, and if you happen to strike a public offical a second charge added. If you are arrested for assult, you will have an arrest record for assult. Try to buy a gun with that pending. A Judge may order the surender of guns you own, until it goes to court. You say they will take your guns when they pry them out of your cold dead hands. I would hate to see your name in the media, crazed gunman killed in shoot out with police, after Judge orders surender of his guns, pending the outcome of an assult charge and assult of a public offical. The media is only going to tell the part that best fits their agena. So more than likely you will be in the crazed gunman catigory. An eye for an eye , is a good thing til someone wants your eye. Turning the other cheek, can keep you out of jail. But to each his own, fresh meat in jail as I understand it is a good thing. They don't want you to turn the other cheek, just turn around.

Oh just in case I am not calling you crazed, just tring to make a point.

And you are right we are on the same page in some areas. I do think we are talking about two differant things in a way though. You are IMO in away saying all drunks are in accidents or have accidents. JMHO that is like saying all simi-autos are machine guns, or automatic, or an AR 15 is an assult weapon.
 I am not talking about drunks who have accidents, I am talking about those who are pulled over for any number of other traffic violations and found to have been drinking. They may have never been in any type of accident, much less one while drinking. Those with just one to many. And if they have an accident that was caused by their drinking Hang the SOB, JMO.
DUI may stop some, just like it is illegal to kill/murder someone, other than self defence, it don't stop all. Punish those who kill, or harm and make it stick. And make it tough, that still will not stop all either, but it would be more justified to hang somone who has killed or done harm.  Than those who we think might harm someone, you know, kill em just in case.

IMO You believe I am defending drunk drivers. I have said this before, If 12 people say/find beyond a reasonable dought a drunk driver was the main cause of the death of any one, I will buy the rope, tie the knot, pick a tree, put them on a horse, slap the horse's ares, watch them dangle, leave them hanging with a note pinned to their chest, saying this SOB Drunk Driver killed someone, don't you be next. Then Go home sleep like a log and have sweet dreams. Hope that tells you where I stand on drunk drivers who kill or do harm, that is justice. Don't you think that would be a powerful message as well. And I don't think you were directing it at me, when you said , don't run into,  harm or injure me while drinking and driveing, because I will!!!. I say don't let 12 people say you are guilty beyond a reasonable dought of killing/murder, you will find your self hanging from a tree. If they let me.

But I would not do the same for somone who was just caught drinking and driveing, and I am sure you feel that would be a little harsh as well. You just want tougher penalties for those who drink and drive, and that is all well and good. But We had the death penalty for murder, did that stop murder. When a law does not work, we tend to make them tougher and tougher to make them work. Before long, we will be hanging people not because they were in an accident and hurt or killed somone, but because they were simply drunk. Just like tougher gun laws are not going to stop people from killing people.  How about we just make sure that those who do, never do it again. Hope that clears things up a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

CK, your a bit of a quandary for me.

You advocate that  people should not overreact emotionally, but seem you be one of the the most emotional posters around here as of late.

Pardon me if I'm a bit confused, perhaps you could clear that up for me?

If 12 people say someone is guilty beyond a reasonable dought, and the penalty is death, and I do have issues with the death penalty, but that is another arguement, then death it should be. I think a punishment should fit the crime, but what is the crime and or harm done.
Yes I guess I am am a little emotional about freedoms and liberty, and when I see them attacked from all sides. I post something then it is pointed how stupid or ignorant I am, becuase I have stepped on somones toes. And the H word everybody hates so much, Or I misspelled somthing. It is Point and counter Point. If what I post is emtional gibberish, and makes little or no sence and most see it that way I will stop. That is not emotional, just oh well and go about my business. I spend way to much time on here any, or the wife thinks so. Some times you have to fight fire with fire. And I enjoy the debating, I do learn from it.

Posted By ckell on 28 Dec 2012 01:08 AM
If 12 people say someone is guilty beyond a reasonable dought, and the penalty is death, and I do have issues with the death penalty, but that is another arguement, then death it should be. I think a punishment should fit the crime, but what is the crime and or harm done.
Yes I guess I am am a little emotional about freedoms and liberty, and when I see them attacked from all sides. I post something then it is pointed how stupid or ignorant I am, becuase I have stepped on somones toes. And the H word everybody hates so much, Or I misspelled somthing. It is Point and counter Point. If what I post is emtional gibberish, and makes little or no sence and most see it that way I will stop. That is not emotional, just oh well and go about my business. I spend way to much time on here any, or the wife thinks so. Some times you have to fight fire with fire. And I enjoy the debating, I do learn from it.

See what I'm trying too say!!! Just calm down, and don't worry about the rest of us.

We're all trying to make a point on a "web site".

If fools try to pick someone apart over foolish things like poor spelling, or other foolishness, so what???

I can't say that I'm not guilty, but do my best to try and not take myself to seriously on any website.

I do try to make my point, but at what point does one decide that the point is accepted or not?

I guess it's your call, but have too say that I see a bit of the oxymoron in many of your posts, in that your very emotional, in telling us not to act emotionally.

Hmm , tried and convicted , death? Seems to me that one state, I think Indiana stopped all death sentences because a large amount of those convicted were not guilty. This was a few yrs ago but it goes to show you even the innocent can and are convicted in the USA. Do not get me wrong, I feel the death sentence is a good tool for some.

With today's highly advanced forensic science technology there should be no doubt about ones guilt when one is charged with a " death sentence " crime. If the forensic evidence along with witness testimony shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender is guilty then it proves they are in fact guilty of the crime charged with. Many have been in the last few years been proven innocent using the same technology that is being used to show the guilt of those charged. I feel that there are some crimes that should also include the death sentence which at present they do not.

LD now who is being emotional, oxymoron. My post may show I am a moron, but calling me fat.

Yes, I am being emotional, but am I not tempering it with maybe a little reason, and restraint? The antis are useing, whipping up emotion, promoting knee jerk reactions and extrems. Maybe there should be a little more emotion used by the conservatives, promoting reasonable, thought out reactions. I was ending my comments on the subject, with J. As he was ending his. I don't believe I changed his mind one bit or that I was going to. I saw his points, and was finishing mine. We can never fix stupid, if we harshly punish all stupid acts, there will soon be none of us left. But if we stronging punish those who do harm or kill others, we still will not stop it all, but they won't be doing it again. It may send a message to a few, but most believe nothing they are doing will harm anyone or they will not get caught. We all live in denial, one way or another.
I maybe a moron, but I am not an ox, just big boned

Yes, we are definitely on the same sheet. (Just a matter of tomato, tomaato I guess) As I said trying to put into text that everyone can understand or relate to is what makes it so difficult. I see that others have piped up now, and wil do my best to well-phrase my input to such posts.

The way I look at convictions that may be overturned at a later date through the application of more modern technology is this: the person convicted evidently had a criminal past, or they normally wouldn't become a suspect; so if they get convicted and sentenced to die, they are just receiving punishment for something they probably got away with, in the first place!!!!!!!

RT4, I know a guy who was detained because ironically both he, and the truck he was driving matched the description of a guy who had just robbed a bank in the area of Duluth that he was in at the time.

Tho he was cleared of committing the robbery I can see how in a different type of crime, I.E. a murder it might have been more difficult to clear himself. I've known LEO's that were like pit bulls, once they get their teeth into something they're reluctant too let it go, and were just as reluctant too admit that they were wrong.

CK, I just enjoy giving you chit too try and keep you on your toes, but fair enough, no more talk of oxen

Lunker, major difference in being detained and questioned, and actually being charged, bound for trial and convicted, wouldn't you agree?

Big Dawg, I read that a state tester had not preformed her test on drugs for yrs. Just filled out her reports anyway she wanted. Now that state has to release all convicted that she was involved with. Just goes to show you " where there is a way" it CAN happen. http://news.yahoo.com/mass-chemist-...36833.html

Many Lawyers explain, define reasonable dought in differant ways. JIMO reasonable dought would be if it where later found for what ever reason the person was not guilty/ but innosent, all involved witness, jury, judge, prosicution, in the verdict and sentanceing, be put on trial, to determine the degree of their complicity. As far as what value they placed on witeness who may have had a high degree of interest, somthing to gain from the convection, and evidence, that may or may not have been ignored or unrightly used. And subject to the same punishment they handed out. JMHO there is your reasonable dought. So if the punishment was death, those involved, would be placed on trial for Murder, and could be sentenced to death themselves.

Posted By mowgle on 29 Dec 2012 05:43 AM
Big Dawg, I read that a state tester had not preformed her test on drugs for yrs. Just filled out her reports anyway she wanted. Now that state has to release all convicted that she was involved with. Just goes to show you " where there is a way" it CAN happen. http://news.yahoo.com/mass-chemist-...36833.html

She should have to serve out all of the sentences of those released. AND in general population... not some cushy country club protected joint. 

Posted By rthomas4 on 28 Dec 2012 07:43 PM
Lunker, major difference in being detained and questioned, and actually being charged, bound for trial and convicted, wouldn't you agree?

Certainly, I would agree. I'm just pointing out that things can happen.

In the case I referred too of course there was video from the bank, and my friend was easily cleared, but under different circumstance it may be much more difficult to clear yourself.

I guess I have a hard time drawing the conclusion that because someone was wrongly convicted they're probably getting what they deserve anyway because of something else they've gotten away with. I'm not saying that, that isn't the case in some, or even many cases, but it's a bit of a stretch for me.

I know we don't know all of the facts in the Martin/Zimmerman case, but from what I've seen so far it seems to be a witch hunt. I can imagine similar scenarios playing out elsewhere without all the media coverage too reveal it.

Steve that kind of adds to what I was saying as well. Would you bet "your' live on the testimony of one witness no matter how creditable they may seem to be. Kind of would take the old if he didn't do this, he may have don't somthing in the past. Or I just didn't like the way he looked. A trial is for the crime charged at the time. Conviction should be based on only the evidence and testimony presented of that crime/charge and that crime only. Past criminal History, the way they look, attituded and such as that, could and in some cases should be used in sentanceing but sentanceing only. And only after a conviction based only on the reliable, tangible evidence presented.

I won't argue with that one ckell. I can tell you that all of the juries that I've served on were *not* informed of the accused prior anything.