Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: How NOT to Use/Abuse Your Second Amendment Rights - What's Over the Line?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    How NOT to Use/Abuse Your Second Amendment Rights - What's Over the Line?

    There's much information on this forum about the proper, lawful use of firearms. I ran into an article just a few minutes ago, Comcast Rage: Customer Pulls Gun During Technician Visit, and although the comments on the article are all backlashing against Comcast itself, in other circles, some of the antis are holding it up as yet another reason to ban guns entirely.

    Clearly, brandishing one's firearm at an ISP's technician who knocked on the door to ask for the return of his tools is not a lawful use of one's firearm, particularly after stealing his bag of tools.

    I'm starting this thread as a means of demonstrating our support for the lawful use of firearms, by identifying instances where firearms were used in a questionable or less than lawful manner. This isn't for flagrantly illegal acts. We are familiar with those. This thread is here to discuss acts which do cross the line, and why. By sharing some stories, I hope we can better define that line between lawful and unlawful.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Good topic

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    There's much information on this forum about the proper, lawful use of firearms. I ran into an article just a few minutes ago, Comcast Rage: Customer Pulls Gun During Technician Visit, and although the comments on the article are all backlashing against Comcast itself, in other circles, some of the antis are holding it up as yet another reason to ban guns entirely.

    Clearly, brandishing one's firearm at an ISP's technician who knocked on the door to ask for the return of his tools is not a lawful use of one's firearm, particularly after stealing his bag of tools.

    I'm starting this thread as a means of demonstrating our support for the lawful use of firearms, by identifying instances where firearms were used in a questionable or less than lawful manner. This isn't for flagrantly illegal acts. We are familiar with those. This thread is here to discuss acts which do cross the line, and why. By sharing some stories, I hope we can better define that line between lawful and unlawful.
    In my opinion, as with most most issues in life, there is a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable. The extremes are usually not an issue; There are agreed upon times that lawful use of firearms is OK and times when it is not OK. For that gray area, it should be discussed reasonably. Let's not split hairs and argue unnecessarily over "degrees of wrong." Let's take a breath; let's reconsider; let's look at the others point of view, etc. Remember, our objective is to work as a team. Our objective is to achieve "Constitutional Carry in all 57 States (little joke, here). Having a sense of humor always helps.
    My oversimplification answer here is: If you have a few seconds to think about using a firearm, do just that. If you can talk to someone first, do it. If the unthinkable happens, respond accordingly. Not much new ground here, but remember, I really don't have much to contribute at this point.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    ....

    I'm starting this thread as a means of demonstrating our support for the lawful use of firearms, by identifying instances where firearms were used in a questionable or less than lawful manner. This isn't for flagrantly illegal acts. We are familiar with those. This thread is here to discuss acts which do cross the line, and why. By sharing some stories, I hope we can better define that line between lawful and unlawful.
    This IMHO has little, if anything, to do with RKBA/2A and almost everything about being able to control yourself in situations of what are really petty frustrations.

    Sadly, this is precisely the sort of behavior that the antis claim all of us are doing. We might be capable of doing so because we own a handgun and sometimes experience frustration, but most of us have somehow learned how to control ourself rather than throw an adult temper tantrum.

    There is a fairly bright line between staying inside the lines and crossing the line when it comes to the use of deadly force via handguns. It's generally described as "a reasonable apprehension of imminent death or serious bodily injury." The question is just who is the person deciding "reasonableness" and how do they define it.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Which part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?
    Our Second Amendment is abundantly clear. Unfortunately, it's only clear to some of us. It's not clear to the antis.

    However, what part of my OP wasn't clear? You're preaching to the choir, but you're off-target with respect to the purpose of this thread. Please re-read the OP. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by fjpro2a View Post
    In my opinion, as with most most issues in life, there is a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable. The extremes are usually not an issue; There are agreed upon times that lawful use of firearms is OK and times when it is not OK. For that gray area, it should be discussed reasonably.
    Exactly, and thank you for taking the time to read the OP.

    Let's not split hairs and argue unnecessarily over "degrees of wrong." Let's take a breath; let's reconsider; let's look at the others point of view, etc. Remember, our objective is to work as a team. Our objective is to achieve "Constitutional Carry in all 57 States (little joke, here). Having a sense of humor always helps.
    My oversimplification answer here is: If you have a few seconds to think about using a firearm, do just that. If you can talk to someone first, do it. If the unthinkable happens, respond accordingly. Not much new ground here, but remember, I really don't have much to contribute at this point.
    Good points. As my experience increases, my "escalation matrix" changes over time, but three things haven't changed since they were first drilled into my best friend, who happened to be a sheriff's deputy at the time:

    - Avoid conflict if at all possible.

    - Mitigate the conflict by all means at your disposal, stopping short of putting life or limb at increased risk.

    - Defend life and limb as required.

    I fully support stand your ground and castle laws. There should be no duty to retreat, particularly when doing so gives ground on which you have a right to stand to the antagonist.

    On the other hand, I'd much rather walk away than face a year in some trial. Good SYG and castle laws will minimize that risk, but they won't eliminate it.
    Last edited by since9; 07-31-2014 at 06:34 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    This IMHO has little, if anything, to do with RKBA/2A and almost everything about being able to control yourself in situations of what are really petty frustrations. [ ... ].
    I think I got it and others did too.

    You don't want to be a gun-grabber, but merely to sneer at your 'lessers.' I sneer at inappropriate behavior too, but privately, as much as I can.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-31-2014 at 06:30 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The question is just who is the person deciding "reasonableness" and how do they define it.
    That question is one of several which this thread will be exploring.

    Specifically: "I'm starting this thread as a means of demonstrating our support for the lawful use of firearms, by identifying instances where firearms were used in a questionable or less than lawful manner. This isn't for flagrantly illegal acts. We are familiar with those. This thread is here to discuss acts which do cross the line, and why. By sharing some stories, I hope we can better define that line between lawful and unlawful."
    Last edited by since9; 07-31-2014 at 06:35 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    That question is one of several which this thread will be exploring.

    Specifically: "I'm starting this thread as a means of demonstrating our support for the lawful use of firearms, by identifying instances where firearms were used in a questionable or less than lawful manner. This isn't for flagrantly illegal acts. We are familiar with those. This thread is here to discuss acts which do cross the line, and why. By sharing some stories, I hope we can better define that line between lawful and unlawful."
    I would like to know what this customer does for a living? My suspicion is that they are in law enforcement. I am not cop bashing, its just a pattern I have noticed with law enforcment.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    [ ... ] Clearly, brandishing one's firearm at an ISP's technician who knocked on the door to ask for the return of his tools is not a lawful use of one's firearm, particularly after stealing his bag of tools. [ ... ]
    Does Colorado have a statute or ordinance prohibiting brandishing? Wisconsin does not, and openly carrying a gun to my door is perfectly legal. Most jurisdictions have conversion as an element of theft.

    Be careful of provincial narrow minded bigotry.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I understand the point of this thread, and think it's an interesting topic to delve into, but personally I think the actions described in the article are probably flagrantly illegal. I just don't see how anyone with common sense could think that would be legal. I mean, it was almost basically armed robbery from the sound of it...
    Advocate freedom please

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    If he waved a hammer at the technician should carpenters all get up in arms about the proper use of a hammer?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    If he waved a hammer at the technician should carpenters all get up in arms about the proper use of a hammer?
    When did you last see a hammer deliver deadly projectiles at velocities far greater than the average human being's ability to duck?

    You're proving my point: Those of us in possession of deadly weapons have an inherent societal responsibility not to handle them in a threatening manner.

    The courts have already ruled "properly holstered" cannot be misconstrued as threatening, so let's go with the courts' rulings.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    If he waved a hammer at the technician should carpenters all get up in arms about the proper use of a hammer?
    If I flipped you the bird, would that be considered rape? Of course not. Grow a brain, SVG, and stop muddying up sound arguments with your wildly inappropriate gyrations.
    Last edited by since9; 08-10-2014 at 11:02 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Some years ago, four or five (before 2011 Act 35), a Wisconsin bill was proposed that would have liberalized a cop's legal responses to a threat, even to making 'the finger' a threat allowing deadly response. Thank GOoDness it failed, but there was a coincidental up-tick in the rate of commercial laundry grease-trap clean out and collections for all the cop skivvies that had to be laundered.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Ban guns because comcast sucks eh? Homey don't play that.

    A goofy argument to make.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    When did you last see a hammer deliver deadly projectiles at velocities far greater than the average human being's ability to duck?

    You're proving my point: Those of us in possession of deadly weapons have an inherent societal responsibility not to handle them in a threatening manner.

    The courts have already ruled "properly holstered" cannot be misconstrued as threatening, so let's go with the courts' rulings.
    You seem to be missing the point. But to address what I am assuming is an unintentional misdirection......http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_08.html Look how many people are killed by blunt objects such as hammers a year for 2005 at least more than rifles.

    The point is a gun is a tool just like a hammer. The misuse of a tool by an idiot like the example given by you is not a rationale for gun owners to get upset about the few idiots who misuse use that tool.

    I am a carpenter, I am not worried about the image of carpenters because of the dozens killed every year with hammers.


    If I flipped you the bird, would that be considered rape? Of course not. Grow a brain, SVG, and stop muddying up sound arguments with your wildly inappropriate gyrations.
    Ironic second sentence, straw/rafter comes to mind. Before you insult me and arrogantly put yourself as the superior intellect maybe you should have understood what my sentence was meant to convey.

    First sentence ridiculous misdirection I am assuming not on purpose and that you just didn't get what I was saying. If it is on purpose the analogy is a fallacious redherring, and a strawman argument having nothing to do with or even countering my statement.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425

    She was in the wrong multiple times

    #1 she stole the tech's tools,
    #2 she defended her actions with threat of deadly force.

    I don't know of the value of the tools make it a felony, but if it is a felony, she used a firearm in commission of a felony, which adds 7 years to any prison sentence in many states.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Enhancements should be abolished.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You seem to be missing the point. But to address what I am assuming is an unintentional misdirection......http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_08.html Look how many people are killed by blunt objects such as hammers a year for 2005 at least more than rifles.

    The point is a gun is a tool just like a hammer. The misuse of a tool by an idiot like the example given by you is not a rationale for gun owners to get upset about the few idiots who misuse use that tool.

    I am a carpenter, I am not worried about the image of carpenters because of the dozens killed every year with hammers.




    Ironic second sentence, straw/rafter comes to mind. Before you insult me and arrogantly put yourself as the superior intellect maybe you should have understood what my sentence was meant to convey.

    First sentence ridiculous misdirection I am assuming not on purpose and that you just didn't get what I was saying. If it is on purpose the analogy is a fallacious redherring, and a strawman argument having nothing to do with or even countering my statement.
    my bold...

    Indeed it is a simple tool used for a simple purpose.
    I have often contemplated those gun enthusiast that want elevate guns to be some thing very special, only for the elite. Is it just social influence? When they hold a gun do they think "God has bestowed on me this angel's blade and the divine judgement of life and death"? It's no wonder they can easily justify keeping that power away from others beside themselves.
    With apologies to the good Dr.
    And what happened then...? Well...in Who-ville they say
    He picked up his gun and his ***** grew three sizes that day!


    Skidmark is correct that the line is clear.
    If someone's trying to kill you, you try to kill them back.
    If you find yourself using it to intimidate or bully someone that isn't a threat then you can be sure your not doing it right.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Does Colorado have a statute or ordinance prohibiting brandishing? Wisconsin does not, and openly carrying a gun to my door is perfectly legal.
    Colorado does not, as a whole, have a brandishing law. The closest language I can find is here:

    (1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if:

    (a) He knowingly and unlawfully aims a firearm at another person;


    HOWEVER, many municipalities do. For example, here is the municipal code for my hometown:

    9.70.050 Deadly weapon-Unlawful to display, brandish or flourishA. It is unlawful for any person to display, brandish or flourish a deadly weapon in a manner calculated to alarm or for any person to knowingly and without lawful excuse, justification, or purpose to aim or point a firearm at another person; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any situation that constitutes a felony under state law.
    I've read several other Colorado municipal codes (places I frequent), and the language is nearly identical in all cases. "In a manner calculated to alarm" and "brandish/flourish" seem to the main operative words in most cases.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    my bold...

    Indeed it is a simple tool used for a simple purpose.
    I have often contemplated those gun enthusiast that want elevate guns to be some thing very special, only for the elite. Is it just social influence? When they hold a gun do they think "God has bestowed on me this angel's blade and the divine judgement of life and death"? It's no wonder they can easily justify keeping that power away from others beside themselves.
    With apologies to the good Dr.
    And what happened then...? Well...in Who-ville they say
    He picked up his gun and his ***** grew three sizes that day!


    Skidmark is correct that the line is clear.
    If someone's trying to kill you, you try to kill them back.
    If you find yourself using it to intimidate or bully someone that isn't a threat then you can be sure your not doing it right.
    +1

    And if we make a big deal about the tool and not the actions of the individual using/misusing said tool,we are falling into the trap laid out by the anti's to make the tool to be something special that needs to be "regulated".

    I will advocate for not falling into that trap.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    There has been many a brandishing that has averted tragedy. One man's brandishing is another man's rung on the force continuum ladder.

    How not to use/abuse your 2A rights...

    How about this, you don't tell me how to use my 2A right and I won't tell you what to read. Post #4 should have been about as far as this thread went.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,883
    it is appreciated the OP wished to generate a discussion on this subject, but due to the diversity of the state's statutes and culture, it shall be difficult for members to discern what is right or wrong in a given situation since we all bring our 'local biases' based on our knowledge of our individual statutes we must abide by.

    specific example: the OP's initial cite relates a tale of NM citizen who in the OP's perception misused their firearm. when in fact, depending where in the vast state of NM this took place could be the cultural norm. acknowledged, perhaps not so much in ABQ/RR/SF big city environment, elsewhere in the thinly populated state, yes acceptable behaviour.
    further...
    NM statutes 30-7-4 (3) "endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner;" and the penalty:
    (C) "... has a Whoever commits negligent use of a deadly weapon is guilty of a petty misdemeanor."
    http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexi...ection-30-7-4/

    just bringing up this concept as you begin to banter the nuances of what the posters may believe is inappropriate firearm handling/use/etc. but isn't as outlined by the culture of the state they are in.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 08-11-2014 at 10:05 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You seem to be missing the point. But to address what I am assuming is an unintentional misdirection......http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_08.html Look how many people are killed by blunt objects such as hammers a year for 2005 at least more than rifles.

    The point is a gun is a tool just like a hammer. The misuse of a tool by an idiot like the example given by you is not a rationale for gun owners to get upset about the few idiots who misuse use that tool.

    I am a carpenter, I am not worried about the image of carpenters because of the dozens killed every year with hammers.
    I've pounded a few thousand nails in my time, as well. I'm not a carpenter, per se', but I've helped frame a house, and designed and built a work shop in my backyard to code.

    In other words, I get your point, and agree. Some people carry $500 iPhones. I carry a $500 firearm. Both are tools, as are hammers and even fists. While an iPhone would be more useful on a daily basis, it won't stop an attack on my person.

    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    #1 she stole the tech's tools,
    #2 she defended her actions with threat of deadly force.

    I don't know of the value of the tools make it a felony, but if it is a felony, she used a firearm in commission of a felony, which adds 7 years to any prison sentence in many states.
    Hence the point of this thread: There are some actions which might be minor issues while unarmed, but by virtue of carrying a firearm and various laws on the books, become rather serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Enhancements should be abolished.
    If by "enhancements" you're referring to more serious charges for actions involving firearms, I agree, as it puts even honest, law-abiding citizens in greater peril should the justice system make mistakes, and as we're all aware, they most certainly do make mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    If someone's trying to kill you, you try to kill them back.
    I prefer the term "stop" rather than "kill." We're authorized to use deadly force to stop an attack. If the attacker dies, it's a sad misfortune, but one which they brought upon themselves by initiating the attack in the first place.

    Even in states with strong castle laws, if you ever state you were trying to kill the attacker, you may very well run afoul of the law.

    If you find yourself using it to intimidate or bully someone that isn't a threat then you can be sure your not doing it right.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    There has been many a brandishing that has averted tragedy. One man's brandishing is another man's rung on the force continuum ladder.
    As jackrockblc mentioned, local brandishing laws have exemptions, including the lawful use of a firearm to defend one's self against a credible threat.
    Last edited by since9; 08-20-2014 at 06:51 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    paducah
    Posts
    10
    This lady crossed the line by a couple miles. What's the difference between this and armed robbery?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Port Angeles , Washington
    Posts
    39
    There seems to be a simple answer to this problem. The tech should have called 911 to report the theft of tools
    and the threat with a firearm, just let the police sort it out.
    Step #2 would to go up the pole and disconnect the cable connection .

    ......................Jack

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •