Utah man shoots would be carjacker

[OC for ME]

OC4ME, uh, excuse me? er, could you explain which part of my post did you find incorrect?
...
ipse

Refusal to conduct the research, via the link provided by utbagpiper, is on you.

 

[solus]

Well OC4ME, lets see now
1. willie1094 post 1 yahoo 2 May news clip): http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-shoots-kills-carjacker-outside-store-004403757.html
2. pipers post 3 (ksl 2 May news clip): http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34485401&ni...foiled-carjacking&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory
3. piper's post 19 (directed to mods to combine): http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?129781-Utah-man-shoots-would-be-carjacker
4. piper's post 25 where he is discussing victims nationality for which i asked for a cite.
5. Sparky's original post 30 about the autopsy which after being asked for a cite went back and he went back edited the original post saying he got the information from another site (w/o reference)
6. my post 40 asking for cite to piper's post in 25 ~ no response!

ok, so again my complete review for the third time fails to show about the nationality or any type of autopsy report link. trust me before i ping for cites i ensure i didn't miss any since like in #2 is it blended into the posts text.

research, sure...i did not blatantly post the hyperbole info mentioned in my # 4 or 5 without cites...nor did i modify my original post like joe did with a disclaimer at the top of the post making the information indistinguishable from the rest of the post.

by the way the fox news account is quite entertaining, especially clark's anecdotal spew, but quite irrelevant to this discussion.

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

Well OC4ME, lets see now
...
ipse

You asserted:

Originally Posted by solus ...
the alleged victim had perhaps committed simple assault at best.

...

ipse

utbagpiper cited the relevant statutes that could've been applied to the ex-perp. You refused to conduct the research to confirm your assertion. No biggie.

 

[JoeSparky]

Well OC4ME, lets see now
1. willie1094 post 1 yahoo 2 May news clip): http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-shoots-kills-carjacker-outside-store-004403757.html
2. pipers post 3 (ksl 2 May news clip): http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34485401&ni...foiled-carjacking&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory
3. piper's post 19 (directed to mods to combine): http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?129781-Utah-man-shoots-would-be-carjacker
4. piper's post 25 where he is discussing victims nationality for which i asked for a cite.
5. Sparky's original post 30 about the autopsy which after being asked for a cite went back and he went back edited the original post saying he got the information from another site (w/o reference)
6. my post 40 asking for cite to piper's post in 25 ~ no response!

ok, so again my complete review for the third time fails to show about the nationality or any type of autopsy report link. trust me before i ping for cites i ensure i didn't miss any since like in #2 is it blended into the posts text.

research, sure...i did not blatantly post the hyperbole info mentioned in my # 4 or 5 without cites...nor did i modify my original post like joe did with a disclaimer at the top of the post making the information indistinguishable from the rest of the post.

by the way the fox news account is quite entertaining, especially clark's anecdotal spew, but quite irrelevant to this discussion.

ipse

First my logon is NOT "Joe" or "Sparky" it is "Joesparky" please refer to me as such. To presume otherwise would seem to indicate a level of familiarity between yourself and me that is not accurate.
2nd-- you seem to be infering per your #5 above that I "changed" my original post by adding an explanitory "edit" of what I had intended to post (sourced from another online forum and indicating that I had requested a cite for that original poster). I did not change what I originally posted and it remains there UNCHANGED with all added editorial additions very clearly indicated. And since the individual who originally posted the info I used has NOT been forthcoming with a cite to his source I have added a 2nd edit to my post for clarification. Again, my full and complete "original" post remains there in its entirety.
Finally, I do not believe that I did anything that would or could be construed as an "attack" directed towards you in any or my posts that would justify the "attitude" I see in your posts towards/about me in this thread. A change of "tone" would be appreciated. Many seem to have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable--- some have not!

 

[solus]

First my logon is NOT "Joe" or "Sparky" it is "Joesparky" please refer to me as such. To presume otherwise would seem to indicate a level of familiarity between yourself and me that is not accurate.
2nd-- you seem to be infering per your #5 above that I "changed" my original post by adding an explanitory "edit" of what I had intended to post (sourced from another online forum and indicating that I had requested a cite for that original poster). I did not change what I originally posted and it remains there UNCHANGED with all added editorial additions very clearly indicated. And since the individual who originally posted the info I used has NOT been forthcoming with a cite to his source I have added a 2nd edit to my post for clarification. Again, my full and complete "original" post remains there in its entirety.
Finally, I do not believe that I did anything that would or could be construed as an "attack" directed towards you in any or my posts that would justify the "attitude" I see in your posts towards/about me in this thread. A change of "tone" would be appreciated. Many seem to have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable--- some have not!

ya'l are testy out west arn't ye...

ya know joe, (i figure if you feel you know me well enough to chastise me, i must know you well enough to use your first name ~ fair!!)

you didn't even have the courtesy to post the supposed forum link you got your autopsy hyperbole from you keep going back to your original post and here ya go still blame'g some poo foo who doesn't even belong to this forum for failing to provide you with information you should have asked for before you even brought that bovine crap to this forum.

and mate, you bloody well know you changed your original post when you 'updated' it with an edited addition not once but now twice!!

now in your honest opinion ~ tell me how many readers do you believe start at the beginning of a multi-posted thread or continually read backwards to assure other posters just didn't change their postings as they see fit, to any thread. we would be constantly trying to see if someone added addendum throughout the thread's posted conversation?

finally, no where have a bad mouthed you or insulted your intelligence as i have only asked for a bit of background on information you posted!

so now i am truly sorry if you feel this here conversation is personally attacking you and i sincerely feel sorry you believe i have gone out of my way to ruffled your feathers a bit, but guess what; 'tis your feathers that are ruffled and i personally do not care especially since in truth you feel this is due to your own frustration level of know'g you aren't quite on solid ground here with the way you handled this entire issue of presenting a simple cite for your autopsy hyperbole you posted.

ipse

 

[JoeSparky]

Not going to play this game with the above poster
Peace to all

 

[solus]

go well sparky...

if ye trip over the autopsy report cite could ya pop it in a post for us????

would be rite neighbourly of ya if ya did...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

UPDATE: Good Samaritan will not face charges

An article on KSL reports that the good Samaritan, LAC, concealed permit holder, who came to the aid of a women being violently carjacked, will NOT face charges.

Full report at the link above (no registration nor payment required to read).

Notable excerpts below provide insights into some relevant Utah law.

The man who shot and killed an alleged carjacker during an altercation on May 2 will not face criminal charges, the Utah County Attorney's Office announced Thursday.

Orem police say the man, .... shot Taulagi Matafeo once in the chest while trying to prevent Matafeo from taking a woman's car by force ...

The woman and the shooter were not injured.

The man who came to the woman's aid "acted within the purview of Utah law, and no criminal charges will be filed," the Utah County Attorneys Office said in a prepared statement.

...

The shooter told investigators he ran to the woman's aid after hearing her screams.

...

Matafeo "was able to grab hold of the civilian’s firearm, at which time the civilian pulled the trigger," the county attorney's office said.

Prosecutors cited Utah law about use of force, which is lawful for the purpose of "prevent(ing) a forcible felony." Matafeo was carrying through with aggravated assault and robbery by taking the car from the woman, the county ruled, meaning the shooter was within his right to fire his gun.

Deadly force is also justified to prevent death or serious injury to oneself or a third person, the attorney's office noted.

[Emphasis added]

A good day for the practical ability to defend against criminal aggression.

Charles

 

[deepdiver]

Sounds appropriate.