Crofton threats suspect thread

[DaemonAssassin]

Update on Crofton man in Baltimore Sun Website:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-joker-court-appearance-20120821,0,2374347.story

Lovely, next thing they are to do is change the rules on MDC... Thank you, Baltimore Sun for publishing that he had MDC status...

 

[Skins_Brew]

Man, it is a sad state of affairs when he was locked up this long and "medicated" for "telephone misuse." I am not saying whatever he said or did is right, but man oh man. He was released and ordered to continue to take his "medication."

 

[Humon Slave]

And I begin to wonder about the 5th...

of what?

 

[Mr H]

of what?

Amendment

 

[Humon Slave]

Amendment

I was hoping a 5th of scotch, we are going to need it by the end of this.

 

[Humon Slave]

fishy:
1. supervisor called to fire him: meaning he made the first call and started it.
2. Pitney Bowes in statement said he has not worked for them for over 30 day. why call now?
3. pitney Bowes stated he was a subcontractor at the business. (thur temp agent?) why not call the temp agent or stop contract legally by letter in mail, why call?
4. when did a Big company like Pitney Bowes let low level supervisors fire people, that normal done but HR for legal reseaons. so why was he really calling him?
5. what did the supervisor say to bait him into saying joker, something like " so you think you are some kind of a joker don't you?" answer sarcasticly "yea, i am a real joker"?
6. when did Pitney Bowes become part of the federal gov? so stated in all the paperwork.
7. normally you can not get a warrant on hearsay, most wifes are told by the cops that they must get a court ordered of protection before they can do anything. but in this case they said because the suppervisor know he had the means, they acted on it. they also locked up another guy (James Armstead) because they say he was going to shoot up the child support enforcement office. note they clamed only acted on Prescott because he had the means to do a shooting. in Armstead's case he had no guns and a record listing on maryland case search 3 pages long. so he has no means to a AK47. but they locked him up because he look at them on the internet. can i say "police state"?

 

[Docster]

We all talk about 'rights', but we never talk about responsibilities. Rights are not absolute, they are usually accompanied by responsibility. Argue all you want, but in today's society we are dealing with the perceptions of the general populace, and how they percieve things matters to the politicians who then look for ways to change or restrict those rights.

Is it a responsible exercise of your right as a gun owner to wear a shirt that says "guns don't kill people, I do"? Is it a responsible exercise of rights for someone to verbally abuse and bait a LEO who is responding to a 'man with a possible automatic weapon' call since his weapon, although a legal .22 cal rifle, is designed to LOOK like an automatic weapon? Is it a responsible exercise of your rights as a gun owner to fail to know the laws of the state you're taking your weapon into?


We can thump on our chests about our rights all we want, but in the end we're really dealing with trying to change the perception of the general public to accept weapons as a part of everyday society. Around some of the country, that idea has been demonized for many years and will probably take more than 1 generation to become accepted, especially when shooting massacres and idiotic t-shirt wearers continue to pop up. You can either try to ram your rights down the throats of the populace or win them over. Human nature generally suggests that when we try to ram ideas down peoples' throats, they tend to strongly resist regardless of whether the idea is good or bad, right or wrong.........

 

[Humon Slave]

Rights in the US Constitution are absolute.
The "but act responsibe argument" has been played before.
all men are free but blacks
ok now you are free but now you must act responsible to my way of thinking, know your place.
the responsibility argument died with civil rights and modern news press.

 

[Russ D]

This is how they win. Pretty soon saying the word gun will be dreamed a threat. They will slowly twist the srews until we are all criminals in the court of public opinion and pick us off one by one while the rest ofus argue why it could never happen to us. I wonder if they got a confession after he was given his "medicine".

 

[Russ D]

We all talk about 'rights', but we never talk about responsibilities. Rights are not absolute, they are usually accompanied by responsibility. Argue all you want, but in today's society we are dealing with the perceptions of the general populace, and how they percieve things matters to the politicians who then look for ways to change or restrict those rights.

Is it a responsible exercise of your right as a gun owner to wear a shirt that says "guns don't kill people, I do"? Is it a responsible exercise of rights for someone to verbally abuse and bait a LEO who is responding to a 'man with a possible automatic weapon' call since his weapon, although a legal .22 cal rifle, is designed to LOOK like an automatic weapon? Is it a responsible exercise of your rights as a gun owner to fail to know the laws of the state you're taking your weapon into?



We can thump on our chests about our rights all we want, but in the end we're really dealing with trying to change the perception of the general public to accept weapons as a part of everyday society. Around some of the country, that idea has been demonized for many years and will probably take more than 1 generation to become accepted, especially when shooting massacres and idiotic t-shirt wearers continue to pop up. You can either try to ram your rights down the throats of the populace or win them over. Human nature generally suggests that when we try to ram ideas down peoples' throats, they tend to strongly resist regardless of whether the idea is good or bad, right or wrong.........

Until you piss off the wrong person who knows how well armed you are and yahoo.com is touting you as the next mass murderer in training and no one asks to see the evidence because they are babbling about your personal responsibility.

 

[teratos]

There is a lot to the story that we on this forum do no know........

 

[Russ D]

There is a lot to the story that we on this forum do no know........

Which is why we shouldn't rush to judgement.

 

[gmhowell]

Rights in the US Constitution are absolute.

I'd be curious to see even a single citation of the SCOTUS over the past ~225 years that would agree with this. Put simply, you are wrong. Since day one, there have been limits.

 

[Humon Slave]

I'd be curious to see even a single citation of the SCOTUS over the past ~225 years that would agree with this. Put simply, you are wrong. Since day one, there have been limits.

we have let politicians and the courts put limitation on our rights in the form of laws and court rulings. some later to be found unconstitutional.

politicians have brainwashed America in to thinking your can take away your constitutional rights with laws or court rulings, but they can not remove a constitution right without amending the constitution first.

you are protected by the 1st amendment to yell fire in a movie house.
that is your right to do so. but you are responsible for your actions and their consequences. if there was a real fire, then you are a hero, if there was no fire and people got hurt and you got caught. you maybe charged for the consequences of your actions, because you hunt people. but you still have your 1st amendment right to free speech, but you do not the right to hurt people.

politicians like to blur the lines and may you think they have the power to band guns, they don't. they even create unconstitutional laws making you believe that is true.
but they can only limit access to gun to some people who break laws but they can not create a prohibition to the general population by default.
To do that they must write an amedment to the constitution.
it must be passed by 3/4 of both houses
it must then be then sighed by the president.
it must then be passed by 3/4 of the states by referendum

that whole process takes time and with 40 states pro-gun and only 10 against, i do not see them getting the needed 3/4 of states to pass it.

that why we must fight unconstitutional gun laws like in maryland and new york.
new york state constitution like maryland does not have a right to bear arms, the funny thing is that the people of the state of new york ratified the US constitution by referendum, part of the state's ratification document has it's own bill of rights that predated (7/26/1788) the us bill of rights (8/21/1789). and it grants the right to bear arms.

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html

also note: that all current federal gun laws and regs are enforced by ACTS not amedments and can be taken down or change if we try hard enough.

 

[blackseven]

I'd be curious to see even a single citation of the SCOTUS over the past ~225 years that would agree with this. Put simply, you are wrong. Since day one, there have been limits.

Not entirely. I do partially agree with you. There are politicians who believe there should be limits, and at times there have been SCOTUS Judges who conform to the belief that the constitution is open to interpretation. However there is currently (In my opinion with Roberts Court) a majority of the SCOTUS that will defer to the constitution rather then strike new ground with interpretation.

If you're looking for citations, you can look at gun control, reverse discrimination, abortion, any SCOTUS ruling since 2005 (Including Obamacare).

 

[SRD]

Not alot of info in the article.But it looks like he won't be doing any shooting for a little while.


http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/...cle_a972965b-c7b9-5416-b566-2c4cabd067eb.html

 

[MJD438]

Not alot of info in the article.But it looks like he won't be doing any shooting for a little while.


http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/...cle_a972965b-c7b9-5416-b566-2c4cabd067eb.html

He also cannot work, either, since the judge barred him to his residence with the exception of legal/medical appointments (not that I know anything at all about him and whether he was employed or not).

 

[Darkemp]

Any updates to this yet? MD case search says the trial was 10/30 but no disposition is listed yet.

 

[blackseven]

It fell on hurricane sandy and the courts were likely closed that day. I haven't heard anything about it, and no news is likely good news. I know the defense of this case rests on getting away from media blitz that was going on at the time. Lets face it.... we as a nation have a severe case of ADD.

 

[faze]

We as a nation have a severe case of libtardism.