The guy was an off duty armed guard.
FWIW... this guy was not actually an "armed" guard. The gun was a personal weapon.
Last edited:
The guy was an off duty armed guard.
I think "ruined" is a bit of a strech. Irrevocably changed from what she had envisioned, yes. For that the fool with the gun in the backpack should be penalized and for the rest of his life a portion of any money he gets diverted to help pay for medical costs this girl will have. I'd toss in ten years penance as her personal assistant 24x7.Does the fact that he ruined some young woman's life affect anyone?
I think "ruined" is a bit of a strech. Irrevocably changed from what she had envisioned, yes
Sindawe said:I think "ruined" is a bit of a strech.
I think "ruined" is a bit of a strech. Irrevocably changed from what she had envisioned, yes. For that the fool with the gun in the backpack should be penalized and for the rest of his life a portion of any money he gets diverted to help pay for medical costs this girl will have. I'd toss in ten years penance as her personal assistant 24x7.
even I think you should be banned from this site for that one.
on school grounds it still would have been illegal as it should be IMO
from wikipedia:
On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman, an architectural engineering major at the university, barricaded himself in the observation deck of the tower of the Main Building with a sniper rifle and various other weapons. In a 96-minute stand-off, Whitman killed 15 people and wounded many more
Go back an read the first page again. Some were, but like many technical minded people, we tend to go straight to causes and fixes, and not dwell on the injuries.What does it say about us that most people here seem most concerned with what he was carrying?
Does the fact that he ruined some young woman's life affect anyone?
What does it say about us that most people here seem most concerned with what he was carrying?
Does the fact that he ruined some young woman's life affect anyone?
I've said some things that pissed people off, even I think you should be banned from this site for that one.
My bet is a Glock, not in a holster, condition 1. Or maybe a loaded revolver with a cocked hammer. Joe
I hope so. Maybe it's not our place to declare someone's life ruined, but the victim does a pretty good job of explaining her position here.From the limited info, she seems to have a pretty strong spirit and I have faith she'll do better than "ruined."
.She addressed the court, saying every day brings a new difficulty, such as needing help to bathe, being taunted by people who assume she is developmentally delayed, and being unable to squeeze through doors.
"Being a teenager in a wheelchair really stinks," Michelle said
Today, 08:06 AM #53
Gordon
Senior Member
Join Date: 12-26-02
Location: central Kali.
Posts: 3,111 I am a Calif. CCW holder, and I DO have to work at it.I really didn't and shouldn't have to work at it in the other 31 states I am licensed in. I still stand my ground that unfair Ca. laws hold some culpability in the situation.A gun is much less likely to 'go off' in a proper holster, the law forbid him holster carry! This was a tragic accident however and a violation of Calif storage laws and unlawful possesion that should be prosecuted. The reality of the situation is the coming civil judgement he deserves that will no doubt be life crushing.
honestly, stuff like this makes me wonder why so many people insist on carrying one in the chamber.
I still stand my ground that unfair Ca. laws hold some culpability in the situation.
1) Life has been threatened. Documented proof with police report along with recommendation letter from police or sheriffs department that you obtain a permit.
2) Are an active/retired/reserve law enforcement agent.
3) Are a family member of an active/retired/reserve law enforcement agent with documented proof that your life has been threatened.
4) A city employee with a need to carry a firearm.