ashw_justin

No I am not on crack, nor is my "agenda" "whiny." Again, there was actual proof of justifiability. Was it self-defense? Probably. Could it have been resolved without shooting the owner three times in the chest? Probably. Is there way to know for sure? No. Is there a way to prevent people from being shot while hiking? Yes, ban guns in government-managed wilderness.

There has been no emotional outburst, and I was not the one to bring up the constitution. And Arizona law is subject to change, last time I checked. But you are free to keep trying to flame me if you want. Just don't shoot me in "self-defense."

By the same reason you are admitting that the dog-owner was innocent of any aggression toward the shooter. Which makes it murder. But that's not really debateable anymore. What's debateable is should people be allowed to carry guns around, and should there be a penalty for shooting someone to death.

Again, no proof of a raging maniac, nor dogs attacking.

OK, so you have gun-related credentials... I'm failing to see the point. Other than you are pro-gun. Which I think I already figured out...

Don't get me wrong there would be nothing stopping you from taking your gun hiking, but if you did use it, there would be a consequence, the severity of which depending on the circumstances, of course.

If you're talking about my post, your comment is irrelevant. Me, I'm debating gun control with Fat_Teddy. But thanks for the advice.

You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Sure it does. In some cases that penalty is death. Just not when it's self defence. You'll remember that there is no concrete proof that it was self-defense. That's just what the shooter says. And to what degree it was justifiable, we'll never know. But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future. So you ARE in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights. 1) There is nothing indescriminate about my proposal. 2) Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can carry a semi-automatic 10-milimeter whenever, where-ever you want. I don't see any mention of semi-automatic pistols. They didn't even exist. Point being, The 2nd amendment is all about interpretation. "Arms"? So does that mean I can carry around a nuclear warhead and chemical weapons, just in case? That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this. There's no good basis for doing so. Unless you think "because justin wills it" is a good reason. Most won't. Oh I am willing to bet that quite a few people agree with me! Hopefully this case will increase that number.

You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Or at least not that we know of (doesn't stop me from crossing my fingers). But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future. That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this.

Take his guns away. It's probably too late to re-investigate, and it's innocent until proven guilty, so he goes free. But his guns don't. Then ban the carrying of guns by ordinary citizens into any government-managed wilderness. Get some balls and some pepper spray, otherwise stay in the city with your bitch ass. Of course there is already a law against unleashed dogs, but unfortunately the owner won't be able to stand for those charges.

You're still assuming that the shooter is accurately recounting what happened. You can't get any further from being an objective witness... unless you're the other guy. Really the only facts in that article are: four shots were fired, three of them hit the guy in the chest, and his three dogs were on scene. But if you're an Arizona sheriff, it's open-and-shut.

You seem almost as sure of that scenario as is the Sheriff. Great investigate work, I must say. No witnesses, and he didn't shoot the dogs, nor did the dogs harm him in any way. Three shots, all perfectly on target. Makes you wonder, eh? Boy, that sure is one vicious looking dog.

Yeah, because god knows there's no laws against killing people...

We climbed an easy line on the Castle, Saber I think. Then several pitches at the Pearly Gates, some slab, couple of cracks, and Veins of Glory. Next day went to Clem's Holler, more slab, toproped Perils of Pauline, then flailed it on lead until it rained, finished with a couple of laps on Gun Rack. Too sore to stay for a third day.

...it's okay to shoot somebody three times in the chest, as long as they are "homeless." Self defense my ass. Sounds more like target practice to me. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0522hikershot22.html

I think you only are allowed a title if you contribute (?)

exactly. Paul is a major exception. Especially because he was talking trash about bouldering while he was at swiftwater bouldering. I just found that to be lame. Yeah that sounds about right... way to represent in "enemy territory" cracked Oh well, one of these days I'll get to see you crankmasters in action. I can only climb like maybe V2 or V3 though. I have to go back to finish off this one. You'll probably recognize it. I was guessing it's like V2 but I don't know.

sweet thanks. But how do I get there?

Cleary I missed something. Stop rubbing it in! So "Swiftwater"? Is there a guide online, or do I have to buy another overpriced guidebook?

ps. other things aside there's no reason to get down on somebody just because they can't boulder very well, although in this case, I understand...

Ah man Cracked AND Distel were there? Dang and we were busy torturing our feet on low-angle slabs. Where were you guys anyway? Chestbeat: I had to lead a 5.9 slab in the rain... ...cuz I had to get my gear off of the .11c that I was busy flailing on when it started raining.

Oh come now enough with the coyness, admit it you know from the beginning whether you think he's cool and attractive, and you know he's hitting on you (how does that joke go... because his lips are moving).

Yeah but you forgot the part where one of her dude friends (boyfriend? will be if you ask...) comes up and starts saying things like "oh yeah this is the climb that we onsighted in the rain during an earthquake... yeah, but it's easy now, do you need me to climb it for you? just let me know, I'll be over here keeping this woman's butt from touching the ground..." Oh wait you were speaking in general though huh. It pretty much goes as above. Cockblocking-jocks are everywhere.

Well then I'd like to "beam her up" (er, no I am not serious please don't ban me)

Well actually the NC-1701C was the only Enterprise to actually lose the capacity for warp drive initiation!!