That seems to be what everyone agrees on Pilgrim. Where it gets muddy is, it's been reported that after he was bit he went to his pick up, retrieved and loaded his rifle then went and shot the dog that was allegedly now sitting 30 feet away.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
JonJ said:That seems to be what everyone agrees on Pilgrim. Where it gets muddy is, it's been reported that after he was bit he went to his pick up, retrieved and loaded his rifle then went and shot the dog that was allegedly now sitting 30 feet away.
Martlet said:And again, even though it may not have been the action I'd have taken, that "muddy part" shouldn't change a thing. I don't care if he got in his car, drove to his mom's, borrowed her gun, then drove back and shot the dog. I think he was justified. Not very restrained, but justified none-the-less.
I can't see how that would be justified, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.Martlet said:And again, even though it may not have been the action I'd have taken, that "muddy part" shouldn't change a thing. I don't care if he got in his car, drove to his mom's, borrowed her gun, then drove back and shot the dog. I think he was justified. Not very restrained, but justified none-the-less.
jkelly said:I can't see how that would be justified, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.
But I think it's the "muddy parts" that win or lose court cases. And shooting a non-threatening dog from 30' after returning from mom's with mom's gun would likely not be a positive point for the shooter.
Respectfully,
jkelly
Fprice, ...why would you ask me that question?
Which leads us back to the question I asked Lynne and that is, “…did you actually know that to be true when you said it was fact? Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.” I was attempting to filter the hearsay from the facts.
jkelly said:Lynne,
When you said that the shooter lied (twice) about his dog being attacked and that there were no livestock at the shooting location, did you actually know that to be true when you said it was fact? Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.
jkelly said:Fprice, ...why would you ask me that question?
Fprice said:I'm sorry, is there a list of approved questions which we are allowed to ask and another list of questions which we are not allowed to ask? To me it seemed an appropriate question which you are allowed to either answer or not answer at your convenience.
I guess I was plain curious counselor as to why you would bring the issue up again. Perhaps you knew more than you were saying? Like I said, just plain curiousity on my part.
jkelly said:Which leads us back to the question I asked Lynne and that is, “…did you actually know that to be true when you said it was fact? Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.” I was attempting to filter the hearsay from the facts.
Fprice said:Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.
To me that sounds like a strange phrase to use to "filter" something. But again, that's me. I would tend to be a little more direct.
Fprice said:But it seems to me that Lynne has already alluded to her sources ("RKO wasn't the only source of information I listened to or read, dear. ...Edited to add - the POLICE said he lied about his dog being there.)
Now this brings us to the whole issue of "facts". If a person hears reports from reputable sources, can one consider those reports to be factual? Is one to be castigated and demeaned for repeating what these sources have reported?
Fprice said:And is there a hierarchy of sources, some of which are "superior" to others? If there is a hierarchy, who decides which source is better than another?
Fprice said:You know, the more I look at this the more I think my original question might have been the wrong one. A better question might have been, "Why the heck are you bringing this up again at this point?".
What purpose did it serve? To try to embarass Lynne?
Again, my curiosity makes me wonder why.
Lynne said:jkelly...I didn't lie about what I posted. What I posted was a compliation of a couple different radio stations that I was listening to, as well as a couple news stories I had read on line. Jon posted one of them. Happy?
Just like absolutely everybody else here, including Scrivner [sic] with his sources that he asserts are better than everyone else's.
Be advised that, at 4 PM today, Judge Warren Powers found as follows:
Count I - Not guilty;
Count II - Not guilty; and
Count III - Not guilty.
Scrivener,
He must have had a good attorney.
What were the three charges (Counts)?
Is he getting his guns back?
Congrats.Count I - Not guilty;
Count II - Not guilty; and
Count III - Not guilty.
If he is allowed to have them back it depends on who has them. In Fitchburg your guns after like 3 days go to a storage company in Norwood where they incur a $25 per day, per gun storage fee. I was told this by the gun safety instructors who are Fitchburg LEOs. If that happened to him and they were taken in april that was about 10 months ago, rounded to 30 days per month X $25 that's $7500 per gun for storage. NFA or collectors aside how many guns are even worth that much? How many guns would be worth bailing out after one month?Is he getting his guns back?
Count I - Not guilty;
Count II - Not guilty; and
Count III - Not guilty.
If he is allowed to have them back it depends on who has them. In Fitchburg your guns after like 3 days go to a storage company in Norwood where they incur a $25 per day, per gun storage fee. I was told this by the gun safety instructors who are Fitchburg LEOs. If that happened to him and they were taken in april that was about 10 months ago, rounded to 30 days per month X $25 that's $7500 per gun for storage. NFA or collectors aside how many guns are even worth that much? How many guns would be worth bailing out after one month?
Your only alternative according to the instructors is to transfer them to someone with a valid LTC before they are sent to storage.
Could be but he did state the rate more than once. I don't think he gave us the name of the place they send them to(or at least I don't remember him giving it to us) but he did say it's located in Norwood.With all due respect, I don't believe your firearms instructors have any true idea about firearms storage rates
And again, even though it may not have been the action I'd have taken, that "muddy part" shouldn't change a thing. I don't care if he got in his car, drove to his mom's, borrowed her gun, then drove back and shot the dog. I think he was justified. Not very restrained, but justified none-the-less.
I think the typical pricing structure is "pick up and checkin" fee plus daily storage - and $25 sounds about right for the checkin fee.With all due respect, I don't believe your firearms instructors have any true idea about firearms storage rates, or you may have misunderstood what they were saying.
I think you might want to call the bonded firearms warehouse Fitchburg PD uses and ask them what their rates are. Typical storage fees are somewhere between fifty cents and seventy five cents per gun per day.
Darius
The only person who was there (Keith's superior information source, AKA "the defendant") is hardly a disinterested witness, but he paid Keith and got the results he wanted, so that's all that really matters.
According to evidence the defense presented at trial, however, Grossmith had given a rather different account to the police that day. According to the transcript of the 911 call Grossmith made immediately after the incident, Grossmith only told the operator that he shot Kato after the dog bit him;...