http://rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.d...99/&frompost=1
I think this is a very bad precedent, regardless of what anyone thinks of Trapeni's actions. It must be defeated.
"He shot two 22 cal handguns skyward" He is lucky he did not kill anyone with his actions he must have slept in high school physics class "What goes up must come down"! He is lucky his bullets did not come down and hit some random person out enjoying life. If he was going to shoot his gun off the safest way would have been to shoot it into the ground.He should invest in some bean bag rounds or rubber ball rounds for his 12g.Originally Posted by CJ
He should have fired into the ground but it's not likely a .22 bullet will harm anyone when it falls to the ground if fired straight up.
Regardless, the city is essentially saying they will fine anyone firing a gun regardless of the reason, and meanwhile, they're not even going after some of the thug criminals invading lately...
LOL if that's what you think then fine. The bottom line is the guy did something that broke the law and that was just down right stupid and he was fined as such. He could have been slapped with a 1k fine so the city went easy on him because of the situation. Had he been attacked by them or they invaded his home and he discharged his firearm in self defense he would not have been fined. But with all the AD shootings in Vermont the past few years they are really starting to crack down on people being dumb asses and endangering the public. That being said Rutland has become to Vermont what Manchester has become for New Hampshire and that would be the ******* of the state a place for all the trash.
Last edited by NewHampshireNative2005; 09-09-2010 at 09:54 AM.
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50
Fired straight up...unlikely to be dangerous, particularly a .22 handgun fired up...
1K fine is second offense.
The right to armed defense here extends to property. http://www.guncite.com/court/state/48vt636.html
And this right trumps any city ordinance.
I take it you're not aware of this incident: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article...STIN/100619989
That officer fired into the dark (he couldn't see his target) in a very dense residential area, towards houses ad near a school, denser than where Trapeni shot in the air. Yet he was given a pass. This is why this is important.
I do agree, Rutland is turning into a dumping ground for trash. Burlington too is that way these days. The police aren't taking it seriously in either city. Writing traffic tickets gets more priority than robberies, drug dealing, etc.
Last edited by CJ; 09-09-2010 at 12:29 PM.
If such is the case then I'm sure he will have no problem getting the ticket over turned. Second I was basing the 1k fine off the news clipping you attached to the post they said fines up to 1k. Third none of us where at his home when this happened nor did we see him fire the firearms into the air and can say 100% he fired straight up and not at a slight angle. Fourth Myth Busters said when they did the tests that if the gun is fired at a angle they can harm/kill on return. Fifth police almost always get away with breaking the law they took an oath to up hold because they always cover for each other. Sixth I would not know about Rutland I stay the hell out of that corrupt landfill of a city! I have no choice with Burlington as my mom and sisters live in south Burlington by the airport but I tend not to stay to long when visiting. Being born in Berlin,VT and raised in Montpelier,VT I can say for the most part those two towns are not as bad but Barre city is a crap hole, Barre town is not as bad.
Last edited by NewHampshireNative2005; 09-09-2010 at 02:54 PM.
Aparently, so did you...
I'm sure a .22 might hurt if it fell on you, but it's not likely to do more than make you say "Ow, WTF was that?"
How about this....one of the 4 major rules of gun safety. Finger off the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire.....in the air or straight into the ground is not the target.
Warning shots are totally assinine.
"My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."
-Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient
As the .22LR round is affectionately known as the "assassins round of choice" I think a well aimed shot would be devastating to the individual . Do not underestimate the damage potential of this "sissy round"
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George S. Patton, Jr.
first two warning shots should be center mass, the third warning shot should be in the head.
Wonder what would happen if he would have just shot the guy. I am from Utah and the castle doc is in full affect.
I would tend to agree, IF the Shooting was justified IT SHOULD HAVE AIMED TOWARD THE BAD GUY!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote