"Egg Throwing Incident" shooter charged


PDA






carebear
August 8, 2005, 02:59 PM
And yep, he's a convicted felon in possession of what sounds like a .22 rifle.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/04/ctv.ware/index.html

If you enjoyed reading about ""Egg Throwing Incident" shooter charged" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
August 8, 2005, 03:10 PM
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. Applies to both sides in this sad fiasco.

BlackCat
August 8, 2005, 03:13 PM
Right, but at least we're not living in a police state. :rolleyes:

:barf:

El Tejon
August 8, 2005, 03:23 PM
Police state?

Is this not due process? I do not understand your post, Black. :confused:

Desertdog
August 8, 2005, 03:35 PM
First thing that should not have been;
Police say the deadly altercation began when a group of boys started throwing eggs at cars at about 11 p.m. on the west side of the city
Second thing that should not have been;
Police say Ware became irate and eventually drove after the boys, chasing them to a nearby storage facility.
If the shooter had stopped at this point, there would have been a bunch of scared kids only, but he had to be real stupid and;
Ware, 37, then grabbed a rifle and started shooting at the group, hitting Dunson and Dyer, while the others fled, according to police reports
IF the story is as reported I am absolutely for the conviction of this guy.

Jim March
August 8, 2005, 04:19 PM
Oh, he should be convicted all right. But the kids were a bunch of punks and bullies.

Forgive me if I don't shed any tears for any of these morons, on both sides.

scottgun
August 8, 2005, 04:23 PM
This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't mess with people. A normal person wouldn't have done what he did, but then again, you don't know if the person you are throwing eggs at is normal or not.

Byron Quick
August 8, 2005, 04:33 PM
I think he should be convicted...for shooting a firearm inside the city limits and for being a public nuisance.

Teach your kids not to assault other people...not with eggs, not with toilet paper, not with water balloons. Tell them that there are people out there who will shoot them for their innocent fun.

Cesiumsponge
August 8, 2005, 04:40 PM
I would wish this case becomes an example others will use to avoid causing trouble or chasing down troublemakers with intent to maim or kill...


...somehow I doubt we'll see the end of stories like this.

KriegHund
August 8, 2005, 04:43 PM
Theres always someone whos going to snap at the wrong point.

Tis why i always laugh at bullys and the like, becuase, wether they like it or not, chances are they are going to piss of the wrong guy. or woman.

Frandy
August 8, 2005, 04:53 PM
I think he should be convicted...for shooting a firearm inside the city limits and for being a public nuisance.

Sorry, but I do believe the charge will be manslaughter, if not murder. If you are implying that it was self defense, you don't know the law.

Art Eatman
August 8, 2005, 05:45 PM
Tongue in cheek, Frandy, tongue in cheek.

Some might recommend a public service award...

Art

Kjervin
August 8, 2005, 07:26 PM
I would feel better if the mother said, "if only I had kept him home that night..." I only hope she doesn't have any other children, because if she thinks only the shooter is to blame for this tradegy, she might be in for more disappointment down the line.

As for the shooter, he needs to go away for a long time, largely because society frowns on chasing children down and then shooting them, even if they are where they shouldn't be doing things they shouldn't be doing. It doesn't seem like he was in fear for his life, nor like he was out of his mind with anger, just criminally bad judgement.

Kj

Byron Quick
August 8, 2005, 08:21 PM
Sorry, but I do believe the charge will be manslaughter, if not murder. If you are implying that it was self defense, you don't know the law.

I know the law. I simply think that the law is wrong. Much that we classify as assault, manslaughter and murder is not, in my view. I think the charges should be exactly what I said, if there's to be any charge at all. Granted, he will be charged with manslaugher. Convicted, too.

And the surviving scum will feel vindicated and go on to bigger and better assaults. Personally, I think that society should be sending them the message that it's a darn shame that all of them weren't shot through the heart. It's simple really, if you don't want people to shoot at you, then don't throw stuff at them.

I believe in leaving other people completely and 100% in peace by word and by deed. If another person initiates aggression of any degree; then I have no problem with the assailed person responding with lethal force. I know this is not legal under existing law. I simply think that the law should be radically changed.

Basically, thus: If you start a fight with someone and they proceed to beat your brains out...you got what you were begging for. And I believe that the person who gave you what you were begging for should get the thanks of a grateful community.

Hawkmoon
August 9, 2005, 12:01 AM
Actually, Byron, my bet is that he'll be charged with murder rather than manslaughter.

Byron Quick
August 9, 2005, 12:07 AM
Hawkmoon,

I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Depends on state law and the prosecutor. Here in Georgia, I know of several instance where a man was charged with murder and the defense attorney grinned. The men charged were acquitted of murder. I guarantee you that with the evidence the state presented that they would have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter

Depending upon state law and the evidence, going for the more serious charge can be a tactical mistake.

Jeff White
August 9, 2005, 12:42 AM
There is discretion built into the system at every level. Last March I received a report that a 46 year old man had punched a 16 year old boy in the face. Mom and bloody nosed son showed up at the office and demanded the man be arrested. I took their statements and some polaroids of the kid's bloody nose and then went up to talk to the perpetrator.

Well, what the mom and the boy left out of their statements was that the boy and several of his friends were at the mans home pestering his stepdaughter because she had broken up with the victims brother. When the suspect's wife asked them to leave the property, the boys moved off the yard and onto the sidewalk and continued to taunt the girl. When the suspect came home from work and confronted the boys, they refused to move from the sdewalk stating it was public property. The suspect lost his temper and words were excanged and he punched the boy.

The crime met all the definitions of Aggravated Battery because the victim was under 17. Aggravated battery is a felony in Illinois, which would have ment that the suspect would have not been able to bond out that night, would miss work the next day and possibly have a felony conviction with all that it entails. So I arrested him for simple battery, he paid his $110 bond at the jail and went home that night.

The next night the victim's mother was in the office and she was furious, she said she had talked to another officer and he had told her it should have been a felony charge. I then asked her if she thought I should charge her son and his friends with criminal trespass, because the suspect would insist those charges be filed. I told her to call the states attorney and ask him to charge the felony. For some reason after reading all the statements and the report he decided that simple battery was the appropriate charge....

I think manslaughter would be appropriate here unless the man states he intended to kill the egg thrower. He shouldn't have shot the kid, but they shouldn't have provoked him either...Stupid should hurt and it often does...

Jeff

beerslurpy
August 9, 2005, 01:45 AM
Looks like the only winner in this situation was Darwin.

tyme
August 10, 2005, 01:31 PM
Darwin would dictate that all involved should be eliminated from the gene pool.

Byron, why would a thrashing by the kids' parents not be sufficient? I'm all for that, I'm even all for the guy chasing them down and hauling as many as he can catch before their respective parents. If the parents don't punish their children, then maybe the parents should be shot. Shooting the kids after the threat has (temporarily) abated is beyond the pale.

My vote would be for cutting off his trigger finger and branding "Poor Impulse Control" on his forehead.

CARRY'IN
August 10, 2005, 02:21 PM
I once heard a talk radio guy expressing joy at a story about a liquor store owner who blasted a teenager in the back with a shotgun for running out of his store with a sixpack of beer. He thought it was great. If anybody thinks someone deserves to die for throwing an egg at their vehicle I dont want to know them and I dont want them anywhere near me.

Byron Quick
August 10, 2005, 02:42 PM
I don't believe the kids deserve to be killed over small crimes. I do believe that small successful assaults usually lead to bigger and more serious assaults. I do believe in prevention.

What the kids deserved is parents and a society that teaches them that there is no acceptable return on an investment in thuggery.

Instead, what these kids got from society is a reaction as if they were fine, upstanding young men who have been unjustly wronged. They are not. They are apprentice thugs today. They'll be journeymen soon. Then they'll be considering their masterpiece.

So, yes, I maintain that, as a society, our institutions, in this instance, have made us all less safe.

Think about this way: if the law on self-defense stated that there was no linkage between the level of force of the defense and the level of force of the initial assault...don't you think that the number of low-level, I'm just learning my trade, assaults would plummet?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for initiators of aggression. All of my sympathy is reserved for the victims.

My vote would be for cutting off his trigger finger and branding "Poor Impulse Control" on his forehead.

I don't have a problem with that but let's expand it to include the egg throwers. Let's cut off their dominant hands and brand 'idiot' on their foreheads.

Sorry, but I don't see the kids' action as innocent juvenile hijinks.

CARRY'IN
August 10, 2005, 07:24 PM
1. Whatever you believe, one kid was killed.
2. I dont consider throwing an egg at a vehicle an assault.
3. "as if they were fine, upstanding young men who have been unjustly wronged" sounds more like your imagination than what I read Byron.

Think of it this way: Moderator Byron thinks we are less safe because a convicted felon who shot and killed a teenager for throwing an egg at his vehicle is in jail.

Sorry, I dont think that's right. You stay in Georgia and I'll stay in California.

carebear
August 11, 2005, 12:00 AM
Carry,

That isn't an accurate restatement of Byron's position.

I don't believe the kids deserve to be killed over small crimes.

Kinda makes it clear he thinks the guy did wrong and was punished appropriately.

Instead, what these kids got from society is a reaction as if they were fine, upstanding young men who have been unjustly wronged. They are not. They are apprentice thugs today. They'll be journeymen soon. Then they'll be considering their masterpiece.

So, yes, I maintain that, as a society, our institutions, in this instance, have made us all less safe.

This, the meat of his statement, makes it quite clear that there needs to be an acknowledgement that the kids were in no way "innocent victims" and should have expected to and have received a consequence, probably physical, perhaps somewhat out of proportion to their actual crime, for their first steps toward more violent assault.

By making such a response lawful they might actually be deterred instead of walking away thinking they can "get away with it" and progressing to even bolder acts.

Just cause you get the worse of a deal, if you provoke it, you are not a "victim".

CARRY'IN
August 11, 2005, 12:08 AM
"I have no sympathy whatsoever for initiators of aggression. All of my sympathy is reserved for the victims."
I apologize to Byron if I am reading him wrong, I am just a little confused about who he thinks the victim is in this case.

athlon64
August 11, 2005, 12:34 AM
Punks, bullies, troublemakers, and other a'holes eventually meet and mess each other up. Sounds like a good example here, and a win-win for all... surviving punks might have learned a lesson in life (i.e. don't initiate trouble, especially with strangers), and an armed felon is taken off the street.

CARRY'IN
August 11, 2005, 03:29 AM
I like guns. I like carrying one because I know what it's like to have crazies put a knife to my throat and a gun to my head and to be beat half to death....and those things will never happen again. I like killing certain animals because they taste sooooo good. What I dont like is people who do not understand that killing a human being is wrong wrong wrong. It is the worst thing there is (next to being the one getting killed of course). Go tell your jokes to the kid's family.

carebear
August 11, 2005, 03:43 AM
Carry,

There ain't a good, pure one (victim) in this tale.

It ain't the shooter, though he was the initial victim of an unjustified egging by kids who were as likely to have gone on to further attacks (less minor league) on others as they were to straighten up and fly right. (especially given their apparent lack of good parenting)

But, for the same reason, it ain't the kids either. They weren't shot for just doing nothing or even "harmless pranking". They were throwing hard things at moving vehicles, and apparently before hitting this guy hit a lady in the face while she was driving. That's not harmless, that's dangerous (crash waiting to happen) and ignores the unjustified property damage (paint and potentially glass) to other peoples hard-earned property. Under the law, just hitting that lady constituted simple assault and could have been resisted with equivilent or slightly higher force.

The point is, by restraining (by law) the injured party in such situations from immediately administering a justified butt-kicking, we have removed a level of deterrence that previously existed. Additionally, by society accepting parents saying nonsense like "they were good kids making mistakes" instead of treating them like the proto-criminals they are (and insisting such parents apply some correction woodshed style) the kids get the "I'm untouchable" mentality and never learn there are consequences for stupid, anti-social choices.

That is until Mr. Felon or someone like him comes along and takes them to the worst-case school of hard-knocks reality.

c_yeager
August 11, 2005, 05:05 AM
I don't believe the kids deserve to be killed over small crimes. I do believe that small successful assaults usually lead to bigger and more serious assaults. I do believe in prevention.

I agree.

What i am unclear on is how this has any impact on the crime commited by the shooter.

I agree that the kids commited a crime, and that they should be charged, convicted and sentanced.

Again, i am unclear on how this should result in a lesser sentance for the shooter.

The status of the victim has no impact whatsoever on the severity of the crime. by your logic, the kids could just as easily be rewarded for throwing eggs at a person who was clearly a scumbag.

athlon64
August 11, 2005, 11:40 AM
CARRY'IN
I like guns. I like carrying one because I know what it's like to have crazies put a knife to my throat and a gun to my head and to be beat half to death....and those things will never happen again. I like killing certain animals because they taste sooooo good. What I dont like is people who do not understand that killing a human being is wrong wrong wrong. It is the worst thing there is (next to being the one getting killed of course). Go tell your jokes to the kid's family.

If you think killing a human being is wrong wrong wrong, why do you carry a gun? What do you intend to do with it? Brandish it? Just wound people who might threaten you? Why not carry a non-lethal weapon? Also, since it appears you're in San Francisco, where do you carry that gun? Do you have a carry permit? If you do, congrats!

As for the kid's family, they're partly to blame, for not teaching him that it is (was) wrong to throw objects at moving cars that may injure or distract drivers and possibly cause a fatal accident.

goosegunner
August 11, 2005, 11:47 AM
If you think killing a human being is wrong wrong wrong, why do you carry a gun?


I think CARRY'IN answered that here:

It [killing] is the worst thing there is (next to being the one getting killed of course)

Unless you think carrying a gun gives you a carte blanck to roum around looking for poeple who "need to be shot". Because last time i checked that was the job of the justice system/police, your job is to not be a victim.

carebear
August 11, 2005, 01:40 PM
Unless you think carrying a gun gives you a carte blanck to roum around looking for poeple who "need to be shot". Because last time i checked that was the job of the justice system/police, your job is to not be a victim.

Technically they're supposed to look for folks who need arrestin', not shootin'.

That particular job (shooting those who need to be shot) is apparently still unassigned. :evil:

CARRY'IN
August 11, 2005, 07:24 PM
"What do you intend to do with it? Brandish it? Just wound people who might threaten you?"
Unlike most drones, who are either control freaks and thus terrified of losing it (most cops), lunatic fringers who pray for a chance to "legally" turn someone off, or the programmed response of fighting like you train and blasting someone if the conditions are met- I would indeed brandish, wound, or do anything that came to mind if I thought I could get away with not killing someone while preserving my own existence. All the training I have recieved expressly forbids this type of mindset but, oh well, we are who we are. If I die because I hesitated pulling the trigger you can post jokes about it.

CARRY'IN
August 11, 2005, 07:29 PM
Hmmm. Should have read before posting. "Most cops" may not have been the best words to use. How about "more than a few" or......."some".....or......something like that?

If you enjoyed reading about ""Egg Throwing Incident" shooter charged" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!