Bailenforcer
Regular Member
yes he is a tiny little boy, easily intimidated I am sure. And now seeing how tiny he is I can believe the assaults against him as well as threats. Remember bullies don't pick on guys my size.
-
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.
Woke up to this story this morning
- Thread starter Jcookndazoo
- Start date
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
All I did was point out that you inferred something that was not stated.
I did not make any statement either for or against the Castle Doctrine. Again, you are inferring something that was not stated.
By the statement I bolded above, I am inferring that you are stating that I am siding with the gun grabbers. Is this correct?
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
Too bad he doesn't have his pistol on him in the prison showers *ducks*
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
To date, most of what we have is from the article in question and I am not sure I have enough evidence to judge the writer or the article.
There is SOME TRUTH in the article:
1. There is a person named Kyle Nuyen.
2. He was convicted of a crime and is in OTIS as being in Prison.
3. There is an Appeal Record in the Michigan Court of Appeals for Kyle Nuyen.
4. The Appeal Record is filed by the same attorney as quoted in the article.
5. The Appeal is currently waiting on court ruling.
What the article mentions that is FALSE or MISSING:
1. He was not convicted of Assault, but was convicted of Weapons - Felony Firearms. It is close, but not completely accurate description and may be due to the Assault Felony he MAY have been changed with or accused of. Reference: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227b.
2. He was convicted in a Jury Trial (simply missing).
3. His first appeal was denied (simply missing).
It would be interesting to get the court transcripts, to see if he was charged with Assault or other charges as well, but that the Jury found him innocent. I called the Circuit Court Clerks Office and the Court Transcripts are only available for in-person viewing at the Circuit Court House (court file: 090000001908-FH).
If I was his attorney, here is the legal challenge that I would file (hope it was done during the first trial):
A. That Force Other Than Deadly Force can include the Threat of Using Deadly Force (assault) and that this does not rise to the level of exception listed in MCL 780.951 (2) (c).
B. If Item A can be argued to be ruled as true/lawful, then Kyle Nuyen MIGHT have acted lawfully under MCL 780.951 (1) (a) since Cecil Moore was in Kyle Nuyen's Dwelling as defined in MCL 780.951 (3) (c) (enclosed porch could be construed as part of the dwelling). Kyle Nuyen would then have to prove that he reasonably believed Cecil Moore was acting to cause imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to Kyle Nuyen or another individual.
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-951
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-972
A good article on this: http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php?topic=28.0
There is SOME TRUTH in the article:
1. There is a person named Kyle Nuyen.
2. He was convicted of a crime and is in OTIS as being in Prison.
3. There is an Appeal Record in the Michigan Court of Appeals for Kyle Nuyen.
4. The Appeal Record is filed by the same attorney as quoted in the article.
5. The Appeal is currently waiting on court ruling.
What the article mentions that is FALSE or MISSING:
1. He was not convicted of Assault, but was convicted of Weapons - Felony Firearms. It is close, but not completely accurate description and may be due to the Assault Felony he MAY have been changed with or accused of. Reference: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227b.
2. He was convicted in a Jury Trial (simply missing).
3. His first appeal was denied (simply missing).
It would be interesting to get the court transcripts, to see if he was charged with Assault or other charges as well, but that the Jury found him innocent. I called the Circuit Court Clerks Office and the Court Transcripts are only available for in-person viewing at the Circuit Court House (court file: 090000001908-FH).
If I was his attorney, here is the legal challenge that I would file (hope it was done during the first trial):
A. That Force Other Than Deadly Force can include the Threat of Using Deadly Force (assault) and that this does not rise to the level of exception listed in MCL 780.951 (2) (c).
B. If Item A can be argued to be ruled as true/lawful, then Kyle Nuyen MIGHT have acted lawfully under MCL 780.951 (1) (a) since Cecil Moore was in Kyle Nuyen's Dwelling as defined in MCL 780.951 (3) (c) (enclosed porch could be construed as part of the dwelling). Kyle Nuyen would then have to prove that he reasonably believed Cecil Moore was acting to cause imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to Kyle Nuyen or another individual.
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-951
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-972
A good article on this: http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php?topic=28.0
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
I was speaking in general terms by some of the more ardent lynchers I saw in the thread. 
Rasher
Regular Member
Rasher-- whether or not we think he is guilty/innocent, 12 of his piers saw him as guilty, and i believe his wife was home--a toddler child announced "there's a guy at the door". I imho homeowner knew what he was there for and hoped the guy would go away and when he didn't he responded inappropriately, 15 min is still long enough to call the police. And i do agree with you bill collectors can get overzealous sometimes, again he had enough time toll make a 911 call.
Last edited:
Rasher
Regular Member
Sorry guys I don't know what happened, part of my post showed up in bails quote some showed up under it, I typed my response in all caps but it didn't post that way, I'll try to fix it a little so you know whats his and whats mine.
Last edited:
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Literally thousands of convictions every year are over turned on Constitutional grounds, I am sorry so many here think it's perfectly okay for some bill collector to open your door and enter your private home and pound on your door admittedly for 20 minutes. For me it's either we go full constitution or we don't and surrender our rights and this we do every day willingly, well most people not I. I was told by my Lawyer back when I was 18 if I didn't accept a plea on the illegal CCW arrest I would spend 7 years in prison, and I fired him. The difference between men and slaves is men stand their ground. That moron bill collector admitted to trespass, abusive behavior and he should have been arrested for trespassing. My enclosed porch is my home PERIOD! There was no legal reason to violate the homeowners rights and Federal law supports the homeowners right to not be persecuted. This is why we have mail, they could have notified him by mail, instead of violating his rights by trespassing. I am sorry you think our moronic jury system is so perfect. We have the most ill informed juries in the world here, and 99% have never heard of Jury Nullification and half those who did, think it should not be practiced. Go ahead and give up your rights and see who comes to your aid, for me I will stand on them and be counted, as a man not a coward like this nations men are headed. If this would have been 1950 that bill collector would have been beaten stupid by most men for trespassing in his home like he did. Today we all talk about our guns, talk tough and cower at the first sign of conflict. Since I have worked with those idiots I know the mindset and they for the most part have no respect for Constitutional law.
Oh and his hoping the guy would go away? The guy should have gone away at the first sign he was un-welcomed and that would have been two minutes after the knocking brought no results. No excuse in the world will justify what the thug admitted to and that's 20 minutes of thug like behavior by continued knocking.
Like I said before go and time yourself knocking for 20 minutes and tell me that isn't abusive or even psychotic behavior. "I did it today to make a point to someone and after barely 3 minutes he said okay I get the point the knocking is starting to get to me". It was and is abusive behavior.
Luk 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
.
Oh and his hoping the guy would go away? The guy should have gone away at the first sign he was un-welcomed and that would have been two minutes after the knocking brought no results. No excuse in the world will justify what the thug admitted to and that's 20 minutes of thug like behavior by continued knocking.
Like I said before go and time yourself knocking for 20 minutes and tell me that isn't abusive or even psychotic behavior. "I did it today to make a point to someone and after barely 3 minutes he said okay I get the point the knocking is starting to get to me". It was and is abusive behavior.
Luk 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
.
T Vance
Regular Member
•(8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
A mans home is his castle
I think it is just a tad ridiculous that this man was brought up on charges. How many of us carry a gun inside our own house? I know that I always have a firearm within reach. I know plenty of people keep one strapped on their belt even in their own living room. And answering the door with a firearm, suddenly this is a crime? When I was living in San Antonio I almost always answered the door with a pistol in my hand. Not because I'm a nut job, but because at the time there was a killer on the loose who was fond of knocking on people's door and then shooting them in the face. Even today when there is a knock on my door when I am not expecting company I tend toward caution.
As far as threatening the bill collector (which is what amounted to the assault charge) if there was some @$$h01e that I didn't know pounding on my door for an extended period of time, I would yell at him too. How many times in our life have we made comments that can be construed as threatening? "Stop that before I beat your @$$" or "Do that again and I'll kill you". This man was in his own home, and he wanted the stranger outside to stop beating on his door, so he shouted to quit it or he'd put two in his head. Was that the most tactful maneuver? No. Was it criminal? Not in my humble opinion.
Toss into the mix that this man had been assaulted on his front yard in the past and had every reason to be on edge and wary of strangers...
Nobody got hurt. No shots were fired. One man shouted angrily at another man who was pounding on his door. The fact that he had a gun in his hand makes about as much difference as if the gun had been on a table beside him or in the next room. He didn't shoot at anyone and there is no evidence that he even brandished it at anyone. If the creep wouldn't have been looking through his windows he never would have seen the darn thing in the first place.
As far as "He should have called 9-1-1 first" that is absolute BS. Calling 9-1-1 is a good idea, but it is not a requirement in life. If someone is breaking down my door, I'll call 9-1-1 if I have time. If not, I'll take care of the threat first. Also I don't dial 9-1-1 just because some idiot is banging on my door. I'd shout at him to leave and let him know I had a gun. If he continued to bang on the door or escalate, THEN I would call 9-1-1.
The bill collector is a whiny little punk. The police were looking to arrest someone. The DA is incompetent for deciding to bring charges up, and the whole justice system is jacked if this guy got convicted.
End of soap box rant.
I think it is just a tad ridiculous that this man was brought up on charges. How many of us carry a gun inside our own house? I know that I always have a firearm within reach. I know plenty of people keep one strapped on their belt even in their own living room. And answering the door with a firearm, suddenly this is a crime? When I was living in San Antonio I almost always answered the door with a pistol in my hand. Not because I'm a nut job, but because at the time there was a killer on the loose who was fond of knocking on people's door and then shooting them in the face. Even today when there is a knock on my door when I am not expecting company I tend toward caution.
As far as threatening the bill collector (which is what amounted to the assault charge) if there was some @$$h01e that I didn't know pounding on my door for an extended period of time, I would yell at him too. How many times in our life have we made comments that can be construed as threatening? "Stop that before I beat your @$$" or "Do that again and I'll kill you". This man was in his own home, and he wanted the stranger outside to stop beating on his door, so he shouted to quit it or he'd put two in his head. Was that the most tactful maneuver? No. Was it criminal? Not in my humble opinion.
Toss into the mix that this man had been assaulted on his front yard in the past and had every reason to be on edge and wary of strangers...
Nobody got hurt. No shots were fired. One man shouted angrily at another man who was pounding on his door. The fact that he had a gun in his hand makes about as much difference as if the gun had been on a table beside him or in the next room. He didn't shoot at anyone and there is no evidence that he even brandished it at anyone. If the creep wouldn't have been looking through his windows he never would have seen the darn thing in the first place.
As far as "He should have called 9-1-1 first" that is absolute BS. Calling 9-1-1 is a good idea, but it is not a requirement in life. If someone is breaking down my door, I'll call 9-1-1 if I have time. If not, I'll take care of the threat first. Also I don't dial 9-1-1 just because some idiot is banging on my door. I'd shout at him to leave and let him know I had a gun. If he continued to bang on the door or escalate, THEN I would call 9-1-1.
The bill collector is a whiny little punk. The police were looking to arrest someone. The DA is incompetent for deciding to bring charges up, and the whole justice system is jacked if this guy got convicted.
End of soap box rant.