HankT
State Researcher
imported post
joshmmm wrote:
Yah, now we're finally making some progress...
Keep going.
joshmmm wrote:
Yah, now we're finally making some progress...
Keep going.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Man killed during argument at gas station - Puyallup
- Thread starter compmanio365
- Start date
casullshooter
Regular Member
imported post
That is what you said in Durham , Mr. HankT Nifong.........Condem first, facts later if ever.
That is what you said in Durham , Mr. HankT Nifong.........Condem first, facts later if ever.
thebastidge
Regular Member
imported post
For those who made comments based upon "assumptions" from "the way the article was written":
Just remember that if it is not stated asa fact, you can't assume it to be the case, and sometimes even then. Journalists have assumptions and biases, conscious and unconscious. Telling the "right story" is more important to many of them than "telling the story right."
For those who made comments based upon "assumptions" from "the way the article was written":
Just remember that if it is not stated asa fact, you can't assume it to be the case, and sometimes even then. Journalists have assumptions and biases, conscious and unconscious. Telling the "right story" is more important to many of them than "telling the story right."
Ajetpilot
Regular Member
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
casullshooter wrote:
You're being silly. This isn't about Nifong. This isn't even about condemning.
It's simply a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed man.
Simple.
casullshooter wrote:
You're being silly. This isn't about Nifong. This isn't even about condemning.
It's simply a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed man.
Simple.
joshmmm
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
I really thought we had made some progress and proved that your postulate is WRONG.
In this case, the guy saved his life and hasn't been charged. Seems to me like he used a pretty damned good strategy.
HankT wrote:
I really thought we had made some progress and proved that your postulate is WRONG.
In this case, the guy saved his life and hasn't been charged. Seems to me like he used a pretty damned good strategy.
vinnie
Regular Member
imported post
"It's simply a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed man."
I agree. It IS bad strategy. Leaves you too open to other attacks(legal types etc.)
But sometimes bad strategy is all you have got to work with.
Might as well delurk with a bang.
"It's simply a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed man."
I agree. It IS bad strategy. Leaves you too open to other attacks(legal types etc.)
But sometimes bad strategy is all you have got to work with.
Might as well delurk with a bang.
BluesBear
Regular Member
imported post
Welcome ABoard™ Vinnie.
vinnie wrote:
Welcome ABoard™ Vinnie.
vinnie wrote:
Wise words indeed.
Blood4blood
New member
imported post
Blood4blood
New member
imported post
g
g
Blood4blood
New member
imported post
I`am the Uncle of the man who was murdered at the Shell Gastation these are the facts of the case. 1) The shooter started the argument with the victim.2) The Puyallup police messed up on the investigation. They never tested the shooter for alcohol or drugs in his system. They never tooka powder residue test from the shooter to determine the real shooter. And they never question all the witnesses. 3)there are at this time 3 witnesses, 2 saw the hole thing from start to finish 1 saw it all up to about 2 before the shooting. The 2 witnesses said " the twomales in the car sat and waited for the victim to come outof the gas station." Now this iscoming fromwitness who saw and heard the whole thing. 4)there was no cuts and scrapes on the victims hands. The shooter clames that the victim broke the window. 5) therewere 3 shots, not 2. 6) And the Puyallup Police are not releasing any of the victims clothing , and jewelry. They arenot releasing the police report or the name of the shooter. This case from start to finish was screwed-up. and the Puyallup Police are trying to close the case as quick as they can. If the shooter thought his life was being threatened then why didn`t the two drive away , why didn`t they roll up the window. They were in a car with a gun and the victim was unarmed he had no weapon and the shooter believed his life was being threatened? And most of the Puyallup Police did not and will not let the parents of the victim or the News view the tapes of the MURDER. So there are a lot of questions that are not answered. Why would the Puyallup Police not help give the parents and family closer. If everything that the Puyallup Police say is true then why is everything so hush hush?
I`am the Uncle of the man who was murdered at the Shell Gastation these are the facts of the case. 1) The shooter started the argument with the victim.2) The Puyallup police messed up on the investigation. They never tested the shooter for alcohol or drugs in his system. They never tooka powder residue test from the shooter to determine the real shooter. And they never question all the witnesses. 3)there are at this time 3 witnesses, 2 saw the hole thing from start to finish 1 saw it all up to about 2 before the shooting. The 2 witnesses said " the twomales in the car sat and waited for the victim to come outof the gas station." Now this iscoming fromwitness who saw and heard the whole thing. 4)there was no cuts and scrapes on the victims hands. The shooter clames that the victim broke the window. 5) therewere 3 shots, not 2. 6) And the Puyallup Police are not releasing any of the victims clothing , and jewelry. They arenot releasing the police report or the name of the shooter. This case from start to finish was screwed-up. and the Puyallup Police are trying to close the case as quick as they can. If the shooter thought his life was being threatened then why didn`t the two drive away , why didn`t they roll up the window. They were in a car with a gun and the victim was unarmed he had no weapon and the shooter believed his life was being threatened? And most of the Puyallup Police did not and will not let the parents of the victim or the News view the tapes of the MURDER. So there are a lot of questions that are not answered. Why would the Puyallup Police not help give the parents and family closer. If everything that the Puyallup Police say is true then why is everything so hush hush?
Agent 47
Regular Member
imported post
Interesting screen name.
Interesting screen name.
thebastidge
Regular Member
imported post
If you've got a person who says he shot the perp, regardless of whether it was self defense or not, why would you need to test his clothes for powder residue? He admits he pulled the trigger. Why would you test the dead guy's clothes for powder residue? He was obviously shot. Not like the cause of death was in question and can only be resolved by chemical analysis.
Sounds like someone watches too much CSI without really understanding much.
The police have every incentive to arrest someone for an open-and-close case. Very little incentive to let someone go even if the shooting was justified.
If you've got a person who says he shot the perp, regardless of whether it was self defense or not, why would you need to test his clothes for powder residue? He admits he pulled the trigger. Why would you test the dead guy's clothes for powder residue? He was obviously shot. Not like the cause of death was in question and can only be resolved by chemical analysis.
Sounds like someone watches too much CSI without really understanding much.
The police have every incentive to arrest someone for an open-and-close case. Very little incentive to let someone go even if the shooting was justified.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
casullshooter wrote:
casullshooter wrote:
No condemnation is intended or stated. The postulate has no condemnatory language in it. Please do read it again. It's actually pretty simple (as a lot of great postulates are).
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
I suppose it's better strategy to let an unarmed man beat you to death while your pistol remains holstered.
Sitrep
Regular Member
imported post
All things and people being equal, it is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
As long as the first part is true, then the second part holds true. If the first part is false, so is the second part.
All things and people being equal, it is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
As long as the first part is true, then the second part holds true. If the first part is false, so is the second part.
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
imported post
Blood4blood wrote:
Were you there?
Was the 'victim' a good boy who'd never been in any trouble? An 'honor roll student' despite his D average and more missed days/periods than attended ones?
The police wouldn't release a 'nobody' without charges after a shooting if they thought he had actually shot without justification, ESPECIALLY since they have videotape AND witness statements, which apparently match.
Blood4blood wrote:
Were you there?
Was the 'victim' a good boy who'd never been in any trouble? An 'honor roll student' despite his D average and more missed days/periods than attended ones?
The police wouldn't release a 'nobody' without charges after a shooting if they thought he had actually shot without justification, ESPECIALLY since they have videotape AND witness statements, which apparently match.
imported post
I guess you didn`t read the part were I typed " 2 wittness saw the whole thing from start to finish, and both said the two in the car started a argument with the victim from the car and then when he came up to car is when he shot 3 times.
I guess you didn`t read the part were I typed " 2 wittness saw the whole thing from start to finish, and both said the two in the car started a argument with the victim from the car and then when he came up to car is when he shot 3 times.
joshmmm
Regular Member
imported post
Blood wrote:
The problem is that you can't actually articulate what you are saying!!!
Who is the victim? Are you referring to the dead guy or the guy who was forced to shoot the attacker?
Try using standard punctuation, less pronouns, and articulating the point you are trying to make... you are wasting everyone's time trying to decipher your gibberish.
Blood wrote:
The problem is that you can't actually articulate what you are saying!!!
Who is the victim? Are you referring to the dead guy or the guy who was forced to shoot the attacker?
Try using standard punctuation, less pronouns, and articulating the point you are trying to make... you are wasting everyone's time trying to decipher your gibberish.