Utah man shoots would be carjacker

[MAC702]

...and already established violent bad guy...careful MAC what you bite into from the hyperbole on the individual having 'felon warrants'...

Agreed that his warrants are unknown at the time, as is the possession of a stolen vehicle. But was he not currently involved in car-jacking? Apologies if I am misremembering. I did not label him a felon, only a violent criminal.

 

[J_dazzle23]

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS has nothing to do with why this man was shot. IT IS NOT up to the shooter to make the perp's choices for him. Regardless of the situational awareness of the shooter, the PERP made the choice to attack and go for the gun right after a violent felony.

Stop pinning this on the shooter. He didn't make the choice for the man to attack him. Had the man chose to run the opposite direction it would have ended differently.


The PERP'S choice to attack was the cause of death. Not the shooter's perceived lack of S. A.

 

[utbagpiper]

1. hooray a breakthrough

For whom?

2. truly then the news article was mistaken? armed with what pray tell?

I made the clear in my post. Try reading it.

3. see news article, violent criminal thug was unarmed and his intended victim did not suffer any injury! therefore simple assault as they were playing grab [veiled profanity redacted] at the vehicle's door!!!

Fixed that for you. The deceased is not a victim. He was a violent criminal who suffered an entirely forseeable consequence for car jacking and rushing a man with a gun in a right-to-carry State.

Nor was he playing grab-[bottom] with anyone. That term implies some kind of playful, consensual, sexual activity and it is highly offensive for you to use that term to refer to a criminal assault.

Read the Utah statute I posted previously. URS 76-5-103 is quite clear that aggravated assault doesn't require that serious bodily injury actually occur, only that the assault is "likely to produce death or serious bodily injury."

I don't have to wait to suffer serious injuries to defend myself with deadly force in Utah, and anyone with enough literacy to know how to capitalize at the start of sentences would understand that upon reading it.

And I note your use of veiled profanity in violation of forum rules.

4. sorry see previous post...this portion of the activity was not carried out therefore no crime!!.

What kind of anti-self-defense hack even suggests such a thing. He was in the very act of committing the crime. He doesn't have to gain control of the car and drive away.

Why don't you come on out to Utah and run for State Attorney General on that kind of platform so a million registered voters can laugh you to shame.

5. driver of the vehicle was unhurt according to the news article and did not require ER treatment therefore, hyperbole on life and limb threat unless you can prove otherwise.

LIKELY to cause severe injure doesn't mean that severe injury has to occur. Prove otherwise with citations.

6. again has warrants...so what...fail to pay a traffic ticket and see what is issued by the bench. and yes violent criminal thug who has now assumed room temperature...everyone else went home didn't they?

Fixed that for you again.

Keep defending the deceased criminal all you want. You're just looking foolish at this point.

once again, you are lovely when you are challenged and don't like the comments presented which goes against your OPINION which then forces you to resort to all kinds of subjective opinions thrown about about the poster, quite testy aren't you!!

I just don't suffer gross fools kindly. It is a character flaw that some are prone to expose.

BTW...PIPPER...YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED HYPERBOLE YOU POSTED OR ARE YOU GOING TO TROT ON YOUR NORMAL MERRY WAY...

Citations have been provided and even explained now. But the semi-literate may have problems with comprehension.

darn the caps lock does work on my keyboard...looky there...thanks for the suggestion

Good Scooby. Now, try the regular shift key on the first letter of each sentence.

Charles

 

[solus]

piper, you have provided the cite for your post 25....really?

oh wait it is probably with joe's cite for the autopsy information he provided...

ipse

 

[J_dazzle23]

piper, you have provided the cite for your post 25....really?

oh wait it is probably with joe's cite for the autopsy information he provided...

ipse

What are you wanting cited from 25? I don't see anything in error there. I'm more than willing to track down info for you. I'm extremely close to this case both in personal references and proximity. I'm sure I can set the record straight for you.

 

[HPmatt]

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS has nothing to do with why this man was shot. IT IS NOT up to the shooter to make the perp's choices for him. Regardless of the situational awareness of the shooter, the PERP made the choice to attack and go for the gun right after a violent felony.

Stop pinning this on the shooter. He didn't make the choice for the man to attack him. Had the man chose to run the opposite direction it would have ended differently.


The PERP'S choice to attack was the cause of death. Not the shooter's perceived lack of S. A.

"Well son ..... do you feel lucky?....."
Guess the perp couldn't count to ....One....

 

[solus]

piper, you have violated one of rules that has the most serious ramifications to any member out here on the forum:

(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!

this being a public accessible forum, you have purposely changed the wording of my original posting to change the context, tenor, and meaning to something I did not post nor advocate.

to have this altered posting of my words misrepresented for all of posterity to review is an abomination that cannot even begin to be rectified with an apology.

while you rant and rave about my postings as offensive to your sensibilities, this is, in my opinion, one of the most dishonest and egregiously selfish actions I have ever witnessed on this forum just so you can bolster your perceived ego...

please rectify this situation immediately by deleting your defaming post.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

piper, you have violated one of rules that has the most serious ramifications to any member out here on the forum:

(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!

"Fixed it for you" is a well accepted practice here and it is clear from my post that I have not attempted to falsely attribute anything to you. I made very clear what portions I altered and the purpose for that alteration.

Take your complaint to the mods if you disagree and see how well you fair.

please rectify this situation immediately by deleting your defaming post.

No.

And certainly not until you learn to use capitalization properly (or until a mod says otherwise).

Charles

 

[solus]

piper, I am truly disappointed in your response yet extremely glad you have shown your true beliefs to each and every forum member as well as to the public who, while not members, read our words to assist in how hey react to situations we discuss.

however, I am sorry you feel your ego is such a fragile entity that you will go to any length to maintain your ego's status that you feel you must stoop to these types of activities to 'win'.

therefore, the only good thing from this encounter that has been shown to me and hopefully other readers is that your credibility has been degraded to almost zero and you have been defamed by your own words and actions as you live with those actions both while wandering through this forum as well as you conduct your life's activities.

enjoy your life and I hope whomever you feel watches over you forgive your trespasses done in the name of your ego...

ipse

 

[notalawyer]

piper, I am truly disappointed in your response yet extremely glad you have shown your true beliefs to each and every forum member as well as to the public who, while not members, read our words to assist in how hey react to situations we discuss.

however, I am sorry you feel your ego is such a fragile entity that you will go to any length to maintain your ego's status that you feel you must stoop to these types of activities to 'win'.

therefore, the only good thing from this encounter that has been shown to me and hopefully other readers is that your credibility has been degraded to almost zero and you have been defamed by your own words and actions as you live with those actions both while wandering through this forum as well as you conduct your life's activities.

enjoy your life and I hope whomever you feel watches over you forgive your trespasses done in the name of your ego...

ipse

So, the Mods told you no?

 

[J_dazzle23]

piper, I am truly disappointed in your response yet extremely glad you have shown your true beliefs to each and every forum member as well as to the public who, while not members, read our words to assist in how hey react to situations we discuss.

however, I am sorry you feel your ego is such a fragile entity that you will go to any length to maintain your ego's status that you feel you must stoop to these types of activities to 'win'.

therefore, the only good thing from this encounter that has been shown to me and hopefully other readers is that your credibility has been degraded to almost zero and you have been defamed by your own words and actions as you live with those actions both while wandering through this forum as well as you conduct your life's activities.

enjoy your life and I hope whomever you feel watches over you forgive your trespasses done in the name of your ego...

ipse

Otoh, we know you can switch gears to a REALLY poor ad hominem when your point gets counterpointed and your ego won't let you graciously discuss it....

 

[Grapeshot]

piper, I am truly disappointed in your response yet extremely glad you have shown your true beliefs to each and every forum member as well as to the public who, while not members, read our words to assist in how hey react to situations we discuss.

however, I am sorry you feel your ego is such a fragile entity that you will go to any length to maintain your ego's status that you feel you must stoop to these types of activities to 'win'.

therefore, the only good thing from this encounter that has been shown to me and hopefully other readers is that your credibility has been degraded to almost zero and you have been defamed by your own words and actions as you live with those actions both while wandering through this forum as well as you conduct your life's activities.

enjoy your life and I hope whomever you feel watches over you forgive your trespasses done in the name of your ego...

ipse

So, the Mods told you no?

Not so.

Indicated that, while "changed it for you" has been generally accepted as a disclaimer for precise posting to deliver an answer/opinion, rule #16 may have to be reviewed, then proceed with warnings or infractions.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Not so.

Indicated that, while "changed it for you" has been generally accepted as a disclaimer for precise posting to deliver an answer/opinion, rule #16 may have to be reviewed, then proceed with warnings or infractions.

This is why we can't have anything nice [emoji12]

 

[solus]

Otoh, we know you can switch gears to a REALLY poor ad hominem when your point gets counterpointed and your ego won't let you graciously discuss it....

truly, let me fix your post for you dazzle to something that changes the context, tenor, and meaning to something like this:

sarcasms on: (otoh, great job of switching gears and showing him what a REALLY poor ad hominem he has when his point was counterpointed...ad nausum.) sarcasms off.

of forgot to state: FIXED IT FOR YOU!!

and rule 16 is still intact and I come out looking like a rose

oh dazzle, further, i'm not changing what I posted until you bow down and .....

yes grape it would appear there is a chink in the rule base...your mitigation skills are appreciated.

ispe

 

[J_dazzle23]

truly, let me fix your post for you dazzle to something that changes the context, tenor, and meaning to something like this:

sarcasms on: (otoh, great job of switching gears and showing him what a REALLY poor ad hominem he has when his point was counterpointed...ad nausum.) sarcasms off.

of forgot to state: FIXED IT FOR YOU!!

and rule 16 is still intact and I come out looking like a rose

oh dazzle, further, i'm not changing what I posted until you bow down and .....

yes grape it would appear there is a chink in the rule base...your mitigation skills are appreciated.

ispe

Yeah.....only this doesn't ruffle my feathers.

But I'll still be waiting back here for you if you want to have a rational discussion on why you think the man got shot because he forcibly and violently stole a car, not because he attacked the man intervening who had NOT shot him yet.

 

[solus]

have been mate...seems knowledge known and held is power for some as I asked where pipe and joe's information they posted about this particular case came from so others might review the information to make their own judgements.

tough to hold a conversation when one party holds the information and when put out sounds like hyperbole...especially the autopsy report?

I always have rational discussions, when the playing field is equal...

what would you like to discuss about this case?

btw, didn't steal a car, one small point of contention.

ipse

 

[J_dazzle23]

have been mate...seems knowledge known and held is power for some as I asked where pipe and joe's information they posted about this particular case came from so others might review the information to make their own judgements.

tough to hold a conversation when one party holds the information and when put out sounds like hyperbole...especially the autopsy report?

I always have rational discussions, when the playing field is equal...

what would you like to discuss about this case?

btw, didn't steal a car, one small point of contention.

ipse

He actually stole a car to get to the Mercedes. I can find a story that includes this if you like. You could as well, it's well publicized.

As far as an autopsy report, I don't know where that would be, but eyewitness accounts tell that the man lunged forward for the weapon, which corroborates the whole bit afaik.

 

[J_dazzle23]

“If someone is trying to break into your vehicle, especially while you are in it, that’s considered a forcible felony under Utah law and under that code section it says you can use any force necessary to stop the person who is in the commission of that forcible felony,” he said.

Even before the guy lunged for the weapon, the shooter was legally justified in this case to use any force necessary. He actually gave leeway to the PERP by giving him the chance to back down, when they guy then made a wrong choice again.

After nearly running a guy over in his car half an hour previously, I think it's safe to assume his intent. That's just me.

Robert Boyd reports a resident of an apartment was nearly hit at some point as the suspects drove through a grassy area during their escape.

http://fox13now.com/2015/05/02/man-...hoots-suspected-carjacker-in-orem-police-say/

 

[solus]

He actually stole a car to get to the Mercedes. I can find a story that includes this if you like. You could as well, it's well publicized.

As far as an autopsy report, I don't know where that would be, but eyewitness accounts tell that the man lunged forward for the weapon, which corroborates the whole bit afaik.

not debating his previous activities as i read about the previous theft in the original news article presented in the original post here

and i am quite sure the woman being assaulted and the Samaritan both distinctly remember what occurred in their reporting to the nice police for their report so they do not have to pursue the samaritian for charges...sorry there is a bit of cynicism being expressed.

ipse

 

[J_dazzle23]

not debating his previous activities as i read about the previous theft in the original news article presented in the original post here

and i am quite sure the woman being assaulted and the Samaritan both distinctly remember what occurred in their reporting to the nice police for their report so they do not have to pursue the samaritian for charges...sorry there is a bit of cynicism being expressed.

ipse

I hear your point. This isn't really something that can be cited- you will have to take my word on it. This particular grocery store is in an extremely busy place, and I'm quite positive at the time it occured, you could drive through that lot and see no less than 20 people coming and going within 50 yards of where I took place. I'm quite sure there were more than a few eye witnesses.