Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Frodo on August 16, 2005, 07:18:09 PM
-
See Rule #15, #5
-
I dont see any hard evidence listed that the guy did it.
Then again they make the guys sound a bit weird.
I hope they have more evidence then this "The search indicated Kerns owns several weapons, including an assault rifle and a silencer, according to the complaint. Kerns' father and neighbors told deputies they did not hear any gunshots, according to the complaint. "
And this: "The SWAT team found multiple Marine Corps manuals and empty ammo cans scattered about the Kerns home. ."
If the later is all is any indication, then I could have done it too.
-
They've got nothing.
I have a feeling he did it though.
The sound of a helicopter is a very common PTSD trigger for combat veterans.
Remember the fruit fly helicopter spraying back around 1980? My dad was ready to shoot those ****ers down.
-
Well there is this. I certainly can see why they are investigating him.
Kerns told detectives he would be able to "make that shot" at that distance with "no problem" and that he was a Marine sniper and he would easily be able to "take a shot," according to the complaint.
Deputies said Kerns' father reported that he heard his son say someone had just shot a helicopter down before he rushed out of the house. When Kerns returned to the home, his father told deputies he heard his son say he helped the pilot and co-pilot out of the chopper, according to the complaint.
But White said that is not the truth and Kerns' statements at the site drew suspicion.
Three days later, undercover deputies attempted to trail Kerns after the search, but Kerns led them on a high-speed chase, further prompting a search of his home, according to the complaint.
The search indicated Kerns owns several weapons, including an assault rifle and a silencer, according to the complaint.
-
None of that is real evidence.
Its all odd, but not evidence that he did it.
At least the feds didnt practicaly frame him like randy weaver though.
-
Yeah, they got nothing, although the suspect confessed to means, motive and opportunity.
-
If anything they'll hang him on the silencer. Which is 10 years and/or $10,000 fine for just having the parts for one. Check the Federal law on them you will find they can lock you up if you have common scrap parts in your garage.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Xargos
If anything they'll hang him on the silencer. Which is 10 years and/or $10,000 fine for just having the parts for one. Check the Federal law on them you will find they can lock you up if you have common scrap parts in your garage.
Pretty sure its not a suppressor unless it actually works... got a source?
-
yep... it's gotta work and so far... for a first offence... I don't think anyone has gotten jail time for one silencer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Pretty sure its not a suppressor unless it actually works... got a source?
The Hayduke Silencer Book Quick and Dirty Homemade Silencers by George Hayduke. He is quite clear on what the laws are "If you put a toothpaste tube on the end of your .22 and it cuts down the sound blast even one decibel, that's intent to make a silencer, and that is illegal".
-
Pretty sure hes wrong. In order for it to be a silencer it must cut the decibles to a certain level. Otherwise its considered a flash suppressor.
-
ain't allowed ta use a flash supressor either. it must be called a 'mussel brake', lest the leftist targets.. err.. retards strart frothing at the mouth.
henh.
-
See Rule #5
-
Did it say the silencer was ilegal?
He MAY own it legaly. It is possible.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Did it say the silencer was ilegal?
He MAY own it legaly. It is possible.
He may very well, but that doesnt change the fact he took police on a high-speed chase. Wonder why he didnt get a GSR test when it happened or if he only became a suspect later on.
-
The high speed chase is wacky.
Still being a wack job doesnt mean he shot it down?
I think he prolly did, but It will be interesting to see the evidence they present if this doesnt drop off the radar.
-
it all sounds pretty freakin strange.
Good lesson for dealing with investigators asking leading questions they already know the answers to.... Moral: keep yer trap shut when being quizzed during the course of a criminal investigation & insist on all the forms of protection vis a vis laywers & warrants.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
He may very well, but that doesnt change the fact he took police on a high-speed chase. Wonder why he didnt get a GSR test when it happened or if he only became a suspect later on.
I don't see any probable cause for arrest yet in the article. There has to be quite a bit that hasn't been published.
There was no "chase" listed in the article. He was trailed by undercover, or plain clothes Officers in plain cars. Given that circumstance they can't claim a chase or pusuit as you need marked vehicles for that. If they chased him they may well have violated their own regs and rules. In my old hometown that would be the case. If I saw some strange civilian car following me I'd be heading out away from him and getting distance between the two of us.
Usnig a statement like they did in the article really doesn't constitute cause for arrest or even a warrant. Again there has to be more going on here.
-
See Rule #5
-
Their evidence is that he had empty ammo cans? I have some that I use for storage. He eluded UNMARKED police cars? That doesn't even bear response.
Hopefully that can do ballistics on the bullet. If it turns out it came from a pistol, for example, then maybe we'll see an apology. If he did it, they'd better get some better evidence.
-
a 500 yard shot with a silenced 'assault rifle', at night; with the chopper at about 400-500 foot elevation.
Would like to actually see the evidence.. the rifle; the silencer, etc
A bolt action sniper rifle with proper optics.. I could see that... but an open sight or standard scope 'assault' rifle with a silencer at that range, from a standing position, at night?
I don't think I could make that shot.
But again.. would like to see what the police actually got in the way of evidence.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
a 500 yard shot with a silenced 'assault rifle', at night; with the chopper at about 400-500 foot elevation.
Would like to actually see the evidence.. the rifle; the silencer, etc
A bolt action sniper rifle with proper optics.. I could see that... but an open sight or standard scope 'assault' rifle with a silencer at that range, from a standing position, at night?
I don't think I could make that shot.
But again.. would like to see what the police actually got in the way of evidence.
Not to down you any but
"ex-Marine Corps marksmanship instructor" is part of his resume.
-
See Rule #5
-
"ex-marine corps marksmanship instructor" don't mean diddly if the shot was outside the capability of the weapon and ammo.
factor in conditions..
seems mighty iffy. again, would like to see the weapon in question. An 'Assault Rifle' ain't much of a precison distance weapon.
-
maybe he was the same guy that shot down the apache with an ak47 in disguise?
-
Maybe it was the pilots own sidearm going off?:D
-
maybe it was a hummingbird called 'Pedro'?
-
"
I like how you give this guy the benefit of the doubt and instead make the police look like they are just harassing him. "
i would be disgusted if this DIDNT happen, to ANYONE under investigation by the police.
-
Raider,
Do you make it onto many juries? It's part of life for the police to pre judge a person because being human, and participants in the event, they can't help but be biased by what they see and hear. Thats why the actual prosicution is taken away from them and decided by a jury.
This man may be guilty. All the circumstantial evidence points to it. But again you have made yourself judge and jury at the top of your lungs. It's been rather obvious from other posts that you have an energetic need to warn all of us of the dangers to society by lurking gun weilding nutcases.
I can make the same shot he did with my M14 unsilenced, and iron sights. I thought Capt. Ahab was a fictional character in a book.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Telling the cops "how he could make that shot"
Was he bragging? Or was he trying to be helpful? Eg, 'guys, that shot could have come from anywhere. I could probably make it from here, but the closer inwards you search, the better odds you'll have'. We don't know, because the statement is pretty unclear.
Originally posted by Raider179
and lying about his actions on that evening upon arriving at the crash scene.
What was the lie?
Originally posted by Raider179
He had opportunity
Why, because he was there? How many thousands of other people were within firing range? They all had the opportunity too.
Originally posted by Raider179
he claims to have witnessed it but can't pinpoint where the shot originated from
He's surrounded by houses. Do you know how hard it is to track the origin of a single, sharp noise when there are that many flat walls reflecting sound around?
Originally posted by Raider179
Then running from the cops.
The police were in an unmarked car. Do you understand what that means? For all we know, he was just speeding or trying to get away from what he thought might be some road rage person.
Originally posted by Raider179
It all adds up to me as someone who is quite in touch with reality and it will shock me none when it turns out this kid has some mental illness.
So essentially, you've convicted him in your mind already. Where's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Thank goodness the court of public opinion does not control sentencing.
Originally posted by Raider179
Speeding and Racing are illegal on city streets, they are not "legal behavior".
...and tens of thousands of people do it every day in this country. He got speeding tickets when he was a teenager, not exactly uncommon.
Wait until there's more evidence before making up your mind. This is how lynch-mob mentality works, and it is the enemy of justice. If he did it, then sit back and let the courts take their course.
-
Originally posted by Furball
maybe it was a hummingbird called 'Pedro'?
Maybe it was pedro giving a hummer?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I dont see any hard evidence listed that the guy did it.
Then again they make the guys sound a bit weird.
I hope they have more evidence then this "The search indicated Kerns owns several weapons, including an assault rifle and a silencer, according to the complaint. Kerns' father and neighbors told deputies they did not hear any gunshots, according to the complaint. "
And this: "The SWAT team found multiple Marine Corps manuals and empty ammo cans scattered about the Kerns home. ."
If the later is all is any indication, then I could have done it too.
Same here...
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Wait so he isnt inocent tell proven guilty?
Did I miss a memo?
I am not a court of law. I am allowed to pre-judge, make assumptions and draw conclusions based on what I have heard.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
"ex-marine corps marksmanship instructor" don't mean diddly if the shot was outside the capability of the weapon and ammo.
factor in conditions..
seems mighty iffy. again, would like to see the weapon in question. An 'Assault Rifle' ain't much of a precison distance weapon.
Its also possible he used a different gun other than the assault rifle. I doubt a ex marine corp marksmanship instructor only owns 1 assault rifle and nothing else. That would be odd to me.\
-
Originally posted by bustr
Raider,
Do you make it onto many juries? It's part of life for the police to pre judge a person because being human, and participants in the event, they can't help but be biased by what they see and hear. Thats why the actual prosicution is taken away from them and decided by a jury.
This man may be guilty. All the circumstantial evidence points to it. But again you have made yourself judge and jury at the top of your lungs. It's been rather obvious from other posts that you have an energetic need to warn all of us of the dangers to society by lurking gun weilding nutcases.
I can make the same shot he did with my M14 unsilenced, and iron sights. I thought Capt. Ahab was a fictional character in a book.
I am not on a jury. This a BBS.
I see you have no other point other than to say I am anti-gun, which I am not, I just think the laws aren't strict enough.
The evidence I have so far, points to this guy having some involvement. That is what I am saying, its not anti-gun. You guys are building an argument that I am not making. I already stated it was because of his statements/behavior that makes him suspect. NOT HIS GUN! Deal with it Ahab.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Was he bragging? Or was he trying to be helpful? Eg, 'guys, that shot could have come from anywhere. I could probably make it from here, but the closer inwards you search, the better odds you'll have'. We don't know, because the statement is pretty unclear.
What was the lie?
Why, because he was there? How many thousands of other people were within firing range? They all had the opportunity too.
He's surrounded by houses. Do you know how hard it is to track the origin of a single, sharp noise when there are that many flat walls reflecting sound around?
The police were in an unmarked car. Do you understand what that means? For all we know, he was just speeding or trying to get away from what he thought might be some road rage person.
So essentially, you've convicted him in your mind already. Where's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Thank goodness the court of public opinion does not control sentencing.
...and tens of thousands of people do it every day in this country. He got speeding tickets when he was a teenager, not exactly uncommon.
Wait until there's more evidence before making up your mind. This is how lynch-mob mentality works, and it is the enemy of justice. If he did it, then sit back and let the courts take their course.
I will just answer this list of statements with one quote.
http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/4856945/detail.html
"According to court documents, the turning point in the case came when deputies found a spent shell casing in Kerns' trash that allegedly match a rifle found in his home and bullet fragments removed from the chopper and the pilot's leg."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... I am not jumping to the guys defense for the crime... for all I know he is guilty as hell... if so he deserves to be arrested and tried.
What I am getting the creeps about is you so called liberal human rights types going apopleptic about a guy owning a few guns and getting a few tickets and having a maybe working maybe not silencer (they are legal in a lot of countries and legal here with a permit)
His tickets and drag racing? I bet you guys break the law in much more serious ways all the time... smoke a little pot? that is much worse a crime than speeding 10 mph over the limit right?
That would mean that any crime you were accused of you probly did right?
It must be difficult to pick and choose what rights you support eh?
lazs
lazs for real, Show me the quote where I did that? You are making a straw man argument. I never 1 time mentioned his tickets except in response 1 time to YOU bringing it up. I dont even think you read my posts lasz. You just read what you think I say.
You get tired of lots of things, I get tired of you creating an argument about guns that I am not making.
-
Raider,
I guess it's only a coincidence, but your loudest and most vigorous monologs are about or against gun weilding nutjobs and lax gun laws. That would seem to cloak itself in a white whale skin for observers of this board over time.
I have no attachment to protecting that guy from prosicution if he fired the shot. Your approach to the matter made it hard not to be concerned about your zeal, because of your personal hot button issue.
Your zeal gives me the impression that you would not be an impartial jurer, prosicutor, or judge in the face of a case where the accused had issues involving a firearm.
Also the impression if you could, with the stroke of a pen, you would rather a part of the constitution be tossed out and those disagreeing with that "tuff tittied". After which federal agents would be free to lawfully arrest about 80 million previously lawabiding but soundly "tuff tittied" citizens.
What happens if tomorrow, they find out his father fired the round becuase he's suffering blackouts from post vietnam tramatic syndrom, and the son was only trying to cover for him? So you then just tell the judge to line both of them up on the wall and shoot them for being gun weilding nutjobs who scare you?
To solve your personal fear of nutjobs with guns, we would have to ban all guns in the hands of all private citizens. Then there would be decades of criminals with their guns having a feild day with the now disarmed law abiding population while in parallel policing forces would have to violate additional portions of the constitution to ensure total compliance against a rather large protion of We the People.
No one in this thread is disagreeing with prosicuting this man for his deed. But dude, you ever consider tossing a few brews before weighing in on gun issues....................... .... :)
-
This is the third instance I know of where an aircraft has been shot by some nut job who objected the noise.
I think you guys that are defending this guy must not be pilots. It is not hard to draw a 500 yd circle around the place where the chopper was hit and see who in that relatively small area owns a weapon and has the skill capable of doing this.
It is a well know fact in Police investigations that criminals often come back to the scene of the crime to see what happens when the police arrive. Arsonists are quite often the guys watching the fire dept put out the blaze.
This guy fits the profile in almost all ways. I would strongly suspect he did it.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Raider,
I guess it's only a coincidence, but your loudest and most vigorous monologs are about or against gun weilding nutjobs and lax gun laws. That would seem to cloak itself in a white whale skin for observers of this board over time.
I have no attachment to protecting that guy from prosicution if he fired the shot. Your approach to the matter made it hard not to be concerned about your zeal, because of your personal hot button issue.
Your zeal gives me the impression that you would not be an impartial jurer, prosicutor, or judge in the face of a case where the accused had issues involving a firearm.
Also the impression if you could, with the stroke of a pen, you would rather a part of the constitution be tossed out and those disagreeing with that "tuff tittied". After which federal agents would be free to lawfully arrest about 80 million previously lawabiding but soundly "tuff tittied" citizens.
What happens if tomorrow, they find out his father fired the round becuase he's suffering blackouts from post vietnam tramatic syndrom, and the son was only trying to cover for him? So you then just tell the judge to line both of them up on the wall and shoot them for being gun weilding nutjobs who scare you?
To solve your personal fear of nutjobs with guns, we would have to ban all guns in the hands of all private citizens. Then there would be decades of criminals with their guns having a feild day with the now disarmed law abiding population while in parallel policing forces would have to violate additional portions of the constitution to ensure total compliance against a rather large protion of We the People.
No one in this thread is disagreeing with prosicuting this man for his deed. But dude, you ever consider tossing a few brews before weighing in on gun issues....................... .... :)
LOL my loudest and most vigorous? Are you serious? I get way more involved in Bush/Rove/Iraq than any gun thread. Maybe it just seems that way because you guys are so paranoid that the government is gonna take away your guns, you take anyone who says anything about guns as being some anti-gun radical nutjob. Not the case here.
Still I have seen no one point out to me anything other than their view on my opinion. I see you used no quotes in your accusations about my view, perhaps because my quotes don't fit your argument.
Did any of you even read this when I posted it?
This is not a matter of tickets vs guns. It's a matter of this kid lying and bragging about an incident in which a state chopper was shot down. That is why he looks guilty and he can only blame himself. If he didnt have a fire-arm I would still expect him to be investigated based solely on his behavior/statements. The fire-arm and silencer only prove he has a gun and a way to shoot it without anyone hearing shots. Nothing more, nothing less despite you wanting to make it out that they are after him because he is a gun owner.
If anything I say the opposite of what you are accusing me of saying. So Please show me where I am anti-gun in this thread.
What I did do is read the evidence and make a judgement. To me, It was EASY to see the kid was involved. Which according to the bullet fragments I linked to above is proven correct. I was right on about the kid so you have no leg to stand on.
Once I hear evidence guess what? I am no longer impartial, I make judgements. Sheesh what is wrong with some of you. I didnt just see the topic heading and say oh he did it he owns a gun. I read the link, looked it up on some other news sites and then posted. Like I said it was OBVIOUS he was involved but you guys are so paranoid about losing your guns that you cant see the forest through the trees.
The rest of your post is babble.
-
Raider quoted....."Three days later, undercover deputies attempted to trail Kerns after the search, but Kerns led them on a high-speed chase, further prompting a search of his home, according to the complaint.
The search indicated Kerns owns several weapons, including an assault rifle and a silencer, according to the complaint."
Why would you even quote that if you didn't think it was relevant?
I don't think you are fooling anyone here... you think owning guns is an indication of guilt and should not be tolerated.
And... you accuse me of giving the guy the benifiet of the doubt and accusing the police of harrasment... I didn't say anthing of the sort... I don't feel the cops are harrassing the guy... I think they are dointg there job... what I am disgusted with is the media and the liberal tools here that make him into a bad guy for tickets and gun ownership... a bad person..
There is a good chance he did it but that is not the point...
It is the same thing as a home becoming a "compound" and a gun collection an "arsenal" or a few tickets becoming "a history of clashes with the establishment and police" a restraining order becomeing " a history of spousal abuse"
So long as we let the media demonize people and exagerate and lie... we are part of the problem.
lazs
-
I'm not afraid of the government, Raider. Folks that have had time in service generally don't 'fear' much of anything the 'government' comes up with.
We do however have a very negative reaction to anti-gun commentary, we're not particularly inclined to place in a credible light any noises coming from anyone who's tried to make a case for 'stricter' gun control. It's your foxhole. You dug it, yer in it and you may attempt to keep others from crapping in it, but frankly, yer hole would be the one I crapped in first.
As for me personally, I am against rushing to judgement in any case where the topics relate to a former serviceman, fireman or cop or the presence of a weapon. I'm doubly slow to rush to judgement when both are involved.
You are possibly correct regarding the quilt of this man, however I am quite satisfied to await the formal legal proceedings and evidence garnered and entered into the record via the constitutional process.
If he's guilty, he should be dealt with exteremly harshly for exactly the same reasons he should now be afforded respect and due process.
To see a former serviceman indictied and convicted in the public mind prior to the trial is distasteful to me.. as a veteran, I believe he deserves better, as a citizen he certainly deserves a fair hearing.
Can you say that you have afforded this man the benefit of any doubt?
If not, then you have not honored your obligation to a vetera & citizen and are fair game for derison and ridicule from those that have.
Sorry.. just the way I see it.. not meant to be a personal attack, just an observation of the posts and context.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I think you guys that are defending this guy must not be pilots.
I'm a pilot. My objection to this is the quality of evidence being used. If the bullet matches a gun he owns, then that's that. But 'eluding unmarked police cars' and 'owning empty ammo cannisters'?
C'mon.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Raider quoted....."Three days later, undercover deputies attempted to trail Kerns after the search, but Kerns led them on a high-speed chase, further prompting a search of his home, according to the complaint.
The search indicated Kerns owns several weapons, including an assault rifle and a silencer, according to the complaint."
Why would you even quote that if you didn't think it was relevant?
I don't think you are fooling anyone here... you think owning guns is an indication of guilt and should not be tolerated.
And... you accuse me of giving the guy the benifiet of the doubt and accusing the police of harrasment... I didn't say anthing of the sort... I don't feel the cops are harrassing the guy... I think they are dointg there job... what I am disgusted with is the media and the liberal tools here that make him into a bad guy for tickets and gun ownership... a bad person..
There is a good chance he did it but that is not the point...
It is the same thing as a home becoming a "compound" and a gun collection an "arsenal" or a few tickets becoming "a history of clashes with the establishment and police" a restraining order becomeing " a history of spousal abuse"
So long as we let the media demonize people and exagerate and lie... we are part of the problem.
lazs
As I thought you have nothing.
You have me quoting the news source. Wow I am frothing at the mouth I am so anti-gun. I actually quoted a line from a news article about the high speed chase and the results from a search on his Dad's house. Not the kid's house. You guys say I am worked up about, but the issue you bring up doesnt even matter to me, it is irrelevant. It seems like you two are the ones frothing at the mouth about it.
Bullet fragments and spent shell casing match. Let that sink in real good.
I didnt criminalize the guy cause of his guns as much as you want to believe that. I criminalized him because of his actions/behavior.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm not afraid of the government, Raider. Folks that have had time in service generally don't 'fear' much of anything the 'government' comes up with.
We do however have a very negative reaction to anti-gun commentary, we're not particularly inclined to place in a credible light any noises coming from anyone who's tried to make a case for 'stricter' gun control. It's your foxhole. You dug it, yer in it and you may attempt to keep others from crapping in it, but frankly, yer hole would be the one I crapped in first.
As for me personally, I am against rushing to judgement in any case where the topics relate to a former serviceman, fireman or cop or the presence of a weapon. I'm doubly slow to rush to judgement when both are involved.
You are possibly correct regarding the quilt of this man, however I am quite satisfied to await the formal legal proceedings and evidence garnered and entered into the record via the constitutional process.
If he's guilty, he should be dealt with exteremly harshly for exactly the same reasons he should now be afforded respect and due process.
To see a former serviceman indictied and convicted in the public mind prior to the trial is distasteful to me.. as a veteran, I believe he deserves better, as a citizen he certainly deserves a fair hearing.
Can you say that you have afforded this man the benefit of any doubt?
If not, then you have not honored your obligation to a vetera & citizen and are fair game for derison and ridicule from those that have.
Sorry.. just the way I see it.. not meant to be a personal attack, just an observation of the posts and context.
I am not anti-gun. Damn you guys are thick skulled. I am however against idiots or reckless people posessing them.
As for his innocence
linked in my other post.
"According to court documents, the turning point in the case came when deputies found a spent shell casing in Kerns' trash that allegedly match a rifle found in his home and bullet fragments removed from the chopper and the pilot's leg."
I mean come on, do I really have to wait for a friggin trial first before I want to pass my opinion? I am not on the jury, I am not a reporter, I am one person discussing my take on the situation with you guys. I don't see how that dishonors him. But like I said feel free to quote me where in this thread I said he was guilty because he owned a gun. You won't find it.
-
Bullet fragments and spent shell casing match. Let that sink in real good.
Enh? They don't have a bullet. They have fragments. Let's let the court experts convince a jury that those 'fragments' can without doubt be matched to a shell casing. (I know of no case where a 'fragment' could be clearly matched to either a rife or a casing)
I didnt criminalize the guy cause of his guns as much as you want to believe that. I criminalized him because of his actions/behavior.
I note the very evident lack of the word alleged in that comment.
I also allege that had there not been a gun involved you would have had zero, repeat ZERO interest in the guy or the case... OTOH, somebody putting a crossbow bolt thru a chopper would certainly get my interest. ;)
I mean come on, do I really have to wait for a friggin trial first before I want to pass my opinion?
That would be a refreshing sigin of respect for a Vet and Citizen, yeah.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Enh? They don't have a bullet. They have fragments. Let's let the court experts convince a jury that those 'fragments' can without doubt be matched to a shell casing. (I know of no case where a 'fragment' could be clearly matched to either a rife or a casing)
I note the very evident lack of the word alleged in that comment.
I also allege that had there not been a gun involved you would have had zero, repeat ZERO interest in the guy or the case... OTOH, somebody putting a crossbow bolt thru a chopper would certainly get my interest. ;)
That would be a refreshing sigin of respect for a Vet and Citizen, yeah.
I take it to mean the fragment is large enough to be identified.
I don't alledge anything. I think he did it. I don't think he "alledgely" did anything. Again this is not a court of law. I don't have to use "lawyer-speak"
Shooting down a helicopter is what got my interest.
I have no interest in giving this guy respect when he is out shooting at police helicopters. You can reserve your judgement till after the trial but I am exercising mine and it says "GUILTY".
-
In that case, don't get annoyed when folks look at your posts and pronounce you 'guilty' of being an anti-gun nutcase liberal frothing at the mouth anti-republican anti-right to life airheaded twit with out 'due process' of quoting any palapable evidence to support it.
ok?
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
In that case, don't get annoyed when folks look at your posts and pronounce you 'guilty' of being an anti-gun nutcase liberal frothing at the mouth anti-republican anti-right to life airheaded twit with out 'due process' of quoting any palapable evidence to support it.
ok?
;)
I didnt get annoyed, I just can't believe the ignornance this thread turned into. I started with this.
"I certainly can see why they are investigating him."
which Lazs turned into this
"Raider... you really want a person who is a little different thinking than you to be persecuted based on speeding and drag racing and harmless and or legal behavior that you don't like?"
Again I replied
"But I think his behavior certainly warrants his being looked at as a suspect."
which became
"Wait so he isnt inocent tell proven guilty?"
I challenge you to or lazs to quote me where I said they are going after him because he owns a gun, or he is guilty because he owns a gun, or because of his tickets. I said nothing of the sort and that was the impression that got seeded into this thread from LAZS not Me.
nice straw man argument btw Lazs. Instead of adressing the issues I brought forth, you made up your own and attacked them. well done.
-
don't need to. I think yer guilty. By yer rules, that's all that's necessary.
Like I said.. it's yer foxhole. You dug it. Live in it.
Cheers!!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
don't need to. I think yer guilty. By yer rules, that's all that's necessary.
Like I said.. it's yer foxhole. You dug it. Live in it.
Cheers!!
LoL got any evidence?
If you will notice I used "evidence" to support my beliefs.
You can believe what you want though. I do not feel dishonored or annoyed or whatever other junk you guys were saying. Its your right just as much it is mine to believe he is guilty without waiting for a trial.
It's nice in this foxhole, people are allowed to say things without there having to be a trial every friggin time.:rolleyes:
-
From the article that was posted there isn't any evidence that the you guy say is guilty did it either.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
From the article that was posted there isn't any evidence that the you guy say is guilty did it either.
http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/4856945/detail.html
"As part of an arrest warrant released Tuesday, Kerns was said to be one of the first on the scene the night the chopper went down. Court documents indicate that Kerns came under suspicion almost from the get-go.
He stated hearing a gunshot and seeing the chopper fall, but police officials stated his story was misleading.
In a written statement, Kerns describes the chopper as disturbing his dog and said he was getting annoyed because it was there so long and flying so low."
"According to court documents, the turning point in the case came when deputies found a spent shell casing in Kerns' trash that allegedly match a rifle found in his home and bullet fragments removed from the chopper and the pilot's leg."
"According to police, Kerns has attempted suicide four times."
Like I said earlier, wouldnt surprise me one bit to find out he had a mental illness.
-
I recall a black comedian saying he wouldn't litter because it'd be his luck the empty soda can would wind up next to some dead raped white chick and he'd no doubt be arrested as the 'pepsi strangler'.
I have a buncha shell casings in my trash now.. hope nobody shoots down a helicpoter in my neighborhood, cause I'll no doubt be tried and convicted by the press and liberal anti-gun weenies long before I get my day in court.
-
There still wasn't any indications of EVIDENCE in the article.
Note, I am not saying he didn't do it, just that the article has not indicated anything of significance to indicate probable cause for an arrest. Very interesting that based on that you have already tried and convicted him.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I recall a black comedian saying he wouldn't litter because it'd be his luck the empty soda can would wind up next to some dead raped white chick and he'd no doubt be arrested as the 'pepsi strangler'.
I have a buncha shell casings in my trash now.. hope nobody shoots down a helicpoter in my neighborhood, cause I'll no doubt be tried and convicted by the press and liberal anti-gun weenies long before I get my day in court.
It's sad really. He is mentally disturbed.
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4011846,00.html
"Two years ago, Albuquerque Police and deputies were called to the house twice to deal with Kerns as he tried to kill himself. "
"Two subsequent searches of his home turned up a shell casing wrapped in tape in the trash and evidence of weapons including a rifle, according to the complaint."
Kerns' father, also a Marine, told police in 2003 that Kerns was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after returning from Afghanistan, was on medication and was being treated for depression."
"During his tour there, Kerns suffered a spinal injury that put him in a wheelchair through 2003, according to the complaint.
It was in 2003 that Kerns twice attempted suicide, police reports show."
"On Sept. 6, 2003, police were called after Kerns locked himself in the family's bathroom.
Kerns came out wearing a bullet-proof vest with his hand behind his back, apparently holding something. Amid orders to show his hands, Kerns "quickly pulled the object from behind his back in an attempt to get us to use deadly force," according to the report. The situation ended with Kerns finally dropping the object - a canteen."
-
Raider, you just moved from being a minor annoyance to something else again entirely. And it ain't good.
I'd like you to think about what you just posted, I'd like you to show a little respect for a vet, and I'd like very much for you to stop doing everything you can to put this guy's personal battle for his sanity and dignity in as poor a light as possible.
Can you do that?
-
If posting the truth about the guy makes Raider a bad person then all I can say is RAIDER YOUR GOING TO HELL and I'll probably be right there beside you! It is a shame that the guy is disturbed but in no way did I see any evidence of Raider demeaning the guy or making fun of him. I only saw facts that were represented and in no way did they appear derogatory. People again blowing things out of proportion on the AH Days of our lives BBS.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
don't need to. I think yer guilty. By yer rules, that's all that's necessary.
Like I said.. it's yer foxhole. You dug it. Live in it.
Cheers!!
So by your logic then Muslim men between 20 and 30 who have travelled to Pakistan and Afganistan in the past 3 years should not be singled out for special scrutiny when they travel as they have done nothing wrong?
You should move to Canada. That is what they think here. Better we offend no one by treating everyone equal. And make sure you search that 80 year old WASP Grandmother extra careful as her ticket number was randomly flagged.
-
Originally posted by WindX
If posting the truth about the guy makes Raider a bad person then all I can say is RAIDER YOUR GOING TO HELL and I'll probably be right there beside you! It is a shame that the guy is disturbed but in no way did I see any evidence of Raider demeaning the guy or making fun of him. I only saw facts that were represented and in no way did they appear derogatory. People again blowing things out of proportion on the AH Days of our lives BBS.:rolleyes:
Kewl. Shall we discuss your history of bedwetting, thumbsucking or nose picking next? I'bve got yer records right here. All of 'em. Every last disgusting and embarassing little detail. In fact I can fill pages about your less than stellar record as a citizen. All I have to do is start typing.
I'm sure everybody here would just love to hear about what it is that makes you tick.. and you'd be real hard pressed to prove any of it is wrong. You see I know who you are, what you've done and it ain't pretty, escpecilly the way I'll present it.
Surely you wouldn't mind us discussing freely all your personal problems here, hmmmmmm?
One more time for the slow people.. show a lil respect for a wounded vet. The system has him, let the system try him on the merits of the case, rather than gleefully trashing him in public.
-
Originally posted by Habu
So by your logic then Muslim men between 20 and 30 who have travelled to Pakistan and Afganistan in the past 3 years should not be singled out for special scrutiny when they travel as they have done nothing wrong?
You should move to Canada. That is what they think here. Better we offend no one by treating everyone equal. And make sure you search that 80 year old WASP Grandmother extra careful as her ticket number was randomly flagged.
Enh?
Sorry Habu, can't make the connection.
?
Got the right quote?
-
Originally posted by WindX
If posting the truth about the guy makes Raider a bad person then all I can say is RAIDER YOUR GOING TO HELL and I'll probably be right there beside you! It is a shame that the guy is disturbed but in no way did I see any evidence of Raider demeaning the guy or making fun of him. I only saw facts that were represented and in no way did they appear derogatory. People again blowing things out of proportion on the AH Days of our lives BBS.:rolleyes:
Well other then him deciding the guy is guilty before he gets convicted.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Raider, you just moved from being a minor annoyance to something else again entirely. And it ain't good.
I'd like you to think about what you just posted, I'd like you to show a little respect for a vet, and I'd like very much for you to stop doing everything you can to put this guy's personal battle for his sanity and dignity in as poor a light as possible.
Can you do that?
You are reading way too much into my posts. I just posted info about the guy. I did not trash him nor is that my intent. I got attacked for being anti-gun, I got attacked for saying he was guilty of shooting at the helicopter, Now I get attacked for disrespecting a vet. :rolleyes:
Maybe you didnt see the thread topic but this is about the sniper who shot the helicopter. I discussed my views and supported them by what I see as evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. I think I am the only one who is still talking about the topic. Seems like the rest of you are just sitting around waiting to pounce on my opinions.
Can you stay on topic? And I will continue to not disrepect vets.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Well other then him deciding the guy is guilty before he gets convicted.
They charged him.
I read about it and made an opinion. I thought that is what a BBS is about. Sharing and debating opinions about current events, etc...
How in the hell in a thread called Sniper downs helicopter can you chastise someone for saying who they think did it? So we should discuss it, but no one should say who they think did it?
:lol :lol :lol
-
Dang!
Hangtime, Maverick and the like you sure have the Drama Queen routine down pat...
Nice of you to defend with so much energy the high morals ground. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Ok. It doesn't forbid Raider to have an opinion though.
And I don't remember such an angry reaction from your part when your government put a lot of people in Gitmo without trial.
Oh yeah, they're not white, they're not vets and they're moslems. High morals probably don't apply to them.
-
Well we can start with the headline 'sniper' downs helicopter.
Turns out, first guy to the scene of the crash is guess who...
..a former marine 'sniper'.
*snap*
GUILTY!!
;)
And I don't remember such an angry reaction from your part when your government put a lot of people in Gitmo without trial.
Yup. Hope they build a new kennel soon.. understand the place is gettin kinda crowded with captured insurgents that should be walked twice a day wearing a halter and barking like a dog.
Oh yeah, they're not white, they're not vets and they're moslems. High morals probably don't apply to them.
It doesn't matter what color the dog is.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Raider, you just moved from being a minor annoyance to something else again entirely. And it ain't good.
I'd like you to think about what you just posted, I'd like you to show a little respect for a vet, and I'd like very much for you to stop doing everything you can to put this guy's personal battle for his sanity and dignity in as poor a light as possible.
Can you do that?
In all fairness hangtime, he just posted facts about a guy that is obviously not secret info.
Do vet's get some kind of special treatment just because they are vet's?
Just asking.
-
Raider and Hangtime you are both rushing to judgment of each other.
In the entirity of my posts I have never said anything to bias towards protecting this man. But Raider you are piling on with the convictions of all your earlier posts from other gun threads with your personal bias against nuts who have access to guns.
Raider and his supporters who are American. Do you beleive in our judicial system of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers????? In the anonimnity of the internet you represent yourselves very much otherwise.
Your comments protected as they are on this board by the First amendment don't show any personal conviction that the constitution applies to anyone but your selves.
Raider you set yourself to be more deserving of consitutional protections than the individual in question by your opinions and purial ability to connect dots from media releases.
Have you already convicted him of this crime based on the imperfict medium of a 3rd party? Our constitutional protection of innocent until proven guilty is specificaly to protect this man from your self richeous form of lynchery.
By launching into your opinon you are assuming yourself above this mans status and possible error in conduct, and the possibility that at some time you will be a victom of the judicial system in need of the constitutional garuntee that you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers.
You seem to enjoy the concept that odds are in your favor Hangtime won't be the deciding vote on a jury the railroads you to the grave on circumstantial evidence.
Guys aren't we just such elite and god like persons on this bord, we don't have to look anyone in the eye and pull the trigger after we reveil our true feelings to each other annonymously concerning anything.
We get to play act judge, jury and executioner while real human beings may or may not loose their lives or liberty in the real world while we lurk in the shadows of a non existant electronic world.
Raider would you enjoy being able to go to the web site of the prosicuting authority for this man and anonimously voting guilty or innocent with your internet vote based on what you have read become the basis for judging his guilt or innocence?
You have already performed that chore short of casting an actual vote..........
-
The dude is totally guilty. Guiltyville: popluation...Kerns.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Raider and Hangtime you are both rushing to judgment of each other.
In the entirity of my posts I have never said anything to bias towards protecting this man. But Raider you are piling on with the convictions of all your earlier posts from other gun threads with your personal bias against nuts who have access to guns.
Raider and his supporters who are American. Do you beleive in our judicial system of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers????? In the anonimnity of the internet you represent yourselves very much otherwise.
Your comments protected as they are on this board by the First amendment don't show any personal conviction that the constitution applies to anyone but your selves.
Raider you set yourself to be more deserving of consitutional protections than the individual in question by your opinions and purial ability to connect dots from media releases.
Have you already convicted him of this crime based on the imperfict medium of a 3rd party? Our constitutional protection of innocent until proven guilty is specificaly to protect this man from your self richeous form of lynchery.
By launching into your opinon you are assuming yourself above this mans status and possible error in conduct, and the possibility that at some time you will be a victom of the judicial system in need of the constitutional garuntee that you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers.
You seem to enjoy the concept that odds are in your favor Hangtime won't be the deciding vote on a jury the railroads you to the grave on circumstantial evidence.
Guys aren't we just such elite and god like persons on this bord, we don't have to look anyone in the eye and pull the trigger after we reveil our true feelings to each other annonymously concerning anything.
We get to play act judge, jury and executioner while real human beings may or may not loose their lives or liberty in the real world while we lurk in the shadows of a non existant electronic world.
Raider would you enjoy being able to go to the web site of the prosicuting authority for this man and anonimously voting guilty or innocent with your internet vote based on what you have read become the basis for judging his guilt or innocence?
You have already performed that chore short of casting an actual vote..........
You want to point out where in the Constitution it says "Innocent until proven guilty"???
Because that is not what it says. What it does say is " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and as you can see I am clearly not depriving him of any of those.
Yeah my opinion that he was the one who fired the shots at the helicopter "sets myself to be more deserving of constitutional protections". Ok So again show me where in the Constitution it says Innocent until proven guilty...
This is not a Criminal trial. This is A BBS.
-
It's the Law.
Supreme Court, 1894; Coffin vs US. Citing the 14th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In penning the Majority Decison for Supreme Court case, Chief Justice White clearly makes the connection with 'due process' and the exact phraseology of "Innocent untill Proven Guilty".
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
I think the problem here is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part.
I think I'm pretty reasonable, but I continue to doubt the merits of the case unless they are using criteria that has not been released publicly.
1. Owning guns != suspicious.
2. Evading unmarked cars that appear to be following you = completely normal. We have crazies out there, didn't you know?
3. Saying that the noise bothered you != suspicious
and so on.
If they have a shell casing that matches, or if he failed a GSR after lying about using a gun, or if someone saw him do it, then THAT could be appropriate... but the article is making a circumstantial case to convict him in the court of public opinion. How can he get a fair trial?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think the problem here is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part.
I think I'm pretty reasonable, but I continue to doubt the merits of the case unless they are using criteria that has not been released publicly.
1. Owning guns != suspicious.
2. Evading unmarked cars that appear to be following you = completely normal. We have crazies out there, didn't you know?
3. Saying that the noise bothered you != suspicious
and so on.
If they have a shell casing that matches, or if he failed a GSR after lying about using a gun, or if someone saw him do it, then THAT could be appropriate... but the article is making a circumstantial case to convict him in the court of public opinion. How can he get a fair trial?
Did you read the article that says the bullet fragments from the helicopter match the gun and ammo found at his house?
-
See Rule #4, #5, #6
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
Originally posted by deSelys
See Rule #4, #5
The word on the range is my shot groups are tight enough to pass 'professional' scuitiny. But thanks for the observation, there's always room for improvement.
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
See rule # 4
-
yep... I have stated that I don't know if the guy did it or not but based on what raider originaly said....
It was a smear tactic.. guns.. ewwwwww!!!! speeding tickets... ewwwww!!! a drag racing ticket? be still my heart! an "assault rifle"?? making a 500 yard shot? why even bring it up? why... because these things are raiders boogey men objects..
and... as to the "bullet fragments matching the case found in his trash" good luck on that one.... they can only match caliber... not a specific case... say it is a .30 caliber... that would match probly 40 different types of cases and maybe a billion caes out there.
If the guy did it then he is a criminal and should be prosecuted.. But not for owning guns or talking or speeding or evading unmarked cars.
lazs
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Dang!
Hangtime, Maverick and the like you sure have the Drama Queen routine down pat...
Nice of you to defend with so much energy the high morals ground. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Ok. It doesn't forbid Raider to have an opinion though.
And I don't remember such an angry reaction from your part when your government put a lot of people in Gitmo without trial.
Oh yeah, they're not white, they're not vets and they're moslems. High morals probably don't apply to them.
It's the girdle they are wearing/ It cuts off the circulation to their brain!:rofl
-
This thread has just gotten flat out nasty and with no discernable content outside of calling each other names or taking cheap shots.
I bet Frodo is laughing his butt off at you guys. He caught you hook, line, and sinker.