No Charges In Death Of Woman Shot 9 Times

[Are_grits_groceries]

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- No charges will be filed in the death of a 42-year-old Mesa County woman who was shot nine times in the driveway of a neighbor who said he fired his gun in self-defense.

Crystal Nash, 42, was shot and killed around 2:20 a.m. on Nov. 1 in the driveway at 3007 Rood Ave.

"In declining to file criminal charges here, I do not intend to condone or endorse anything that happened," District Attorney Pete Hautzinger wrote in a letter sent Thursday to Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey. "I certainly believe that neighborhood disputes are usually better resolved without firearms being involved."

Hautzinger said his investigation showed Nash was armed with a 9-mm handgun and had a blood-alcohol level of 0.184 percent when she confronted her neighbor, Tom Jarvis, at his home early Nov. 1. Witnesses said she was upset that he may have called police earlier about a party at her home.

When Jarvis answered the pounding on his door, he said he grabbed his .22-caliber pistol and hid it behind his back.

"He asked her if she had a gun, and she told him that she did and that she was going to use it," Hautzinger’s letter said.

Jarvis told her to put her gun down, according to Hautzinger.

"Ms. Nash responded with another obscenity and brought her gun up across her body toward" the neighbor, Hautzinger wrote. The man then shot Nash, emptying all nine rounds in the clip of his handgun.

Jarvis told investigators he thought he was going to die when Nash raised her gun toward him.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21929709/detail.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Sounds like a good shoot to me

:shrug:

[alphafemale]

2. Agreed. Sounds to me like purely self-defense.

Gotta love these misleading OP's tho.

Golly Gee

[liberalhistorian]

34. Yes, I can see where it was self-defense, but

NINE times? Come on, NINE shots? You would think that after the first couple of shots, that would have taken care of it and she wouldn't have been a threat anymore. I can see why it was self-defense, I think most people would, indeed, have felt very threatened, but I just can't see nine shots being necessary.

And whose account did they go by, anyway? Were there any other witnesses besides the shooter? Because if they're only going by what he said, and she's not around anymore to say otherwise, then that's a problem.

[Tejas]

41. Put down the remote control,

this is not TV. Even LEO's will tell you that when you make the decision to defend your life, you don't just fire a couple of shots and the threat magically disappears.

[alphafemale]

53. When it all goes down, you shoot to kill. You don't shoot to discourage.

As harsh as that may sound, it's the the real world.

[slackmaster]

56. The most defensible frame of mind is to shoot until the threat is neutralized

If the attacker happens to die, that is unfortunate.

[paulsby]

84. this LEO heartily agrees

if you have not BEEN IN a shooting, it is very hard to grasp intellectually, but nine shots is totally understandable given somebody posing an immediate threat to your life.

[PavePusher]

45. When you are trying to defend your life with a .22 caliber pistol...

Yes, you use the entire magazine.

There are very good and sufficient technical reasons for this. I suggest you do some research on the effectiveness of various calibers, and handguns as a catagory, in self defense, before you make hysterical posts.


"Because if they're only going by what he said, and she's not around anymore to say otherwise, then that's a problem."

There is this term, "physical evidence", that you are missing.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. No, you use as many shots as are required.

If shot 1 is a COM hit and the alleged aggressor hits the ground unresponsive, emptying your weapon into that person is legally hazardous.

You shoot until the threat goes away. Which could mean anything, including the alleged aggressor dropping his or her weapon, and attempting to flee.

[PavePusher]

113. You are, of course, entirely correct.

The point being made is that when using a .22, it may very likely be neccesary to use an entire magazine. My apologies for poor wording.

[spin]

46. Nine .22 caliber bullets...

Most experts believe that a .22 cal handgun is inadequate for self defense. I remember one incident where a husband was shot 10 times by his wife and drove himself to the police station to report the incident.

He died the next day.

In a self defense situation, the object is to stop the attack. Depending on the clothing the woman was wearing and where the rounds hit, it's quite concealable that she could have survived 9 shots from a .22 and still killed the man.

[Hoopla Phil]

54. I would imagine that even after nine .22 bullets she was still standing and still

a threat. Had he had more bullets in the gun he would, and should have continued to fire. When your life in in danger you keep firing until the threat is no longer a threat. btw - gun in hand and standing = threat.

IMO this home owner is guilty of only one thing here. Not having enough gun.

[taurus145]

88. Nine times may sound excessive, but it's not

When you shoot to defend your life, you shoot until the threat no longer exists. That means that you don't stop to check between shots to see if the attacker is still capable of returning fire. You shoot until the attacker is no longer moving, breathing, etc.

That being said, good old-fashioned adrenaline plays a huge role for even a well-practiced and accomplished shooter.

From a practical standpoint, the best self-defense firearms trainers in the world teach the "double tap". Shoot for center mass twice before checking for damage.

Check the news archives. It's not uncommon for cops to fire 15 rounds or more at a perp. I recall an incident in California a few years ago in which the cops (several of them) fired at or near 100 rounds at a single criminal.

[iverglas]

89. what do you charge for an hour with your crystal ball?

Nine times may sound excessive, but it's not

Or maybe you are privy to inside facts in this case? One way or another, that's a pretty unequivocal statement there, and I certainly hope you can tell us what it's based on.


When you shoot to defend your life, you shoot until the threat no longer exists. ...
You shoot until the attacker is no longer moving, breathing, etc.

Those are actually two entirely different assertions, aren't they? Yeah. They are. Otherwise, we'd be in a universe where "moving, breathing, etc." = "threat". And we'd just have to shoot everybody who entered our field of vision, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Awful lot of embarrassing language used here in this thread.

"Good shoot" in the first response for starters. Correct term is 'Justifiable Homicide' or 'Excusable Homicide' depending on the specific state where this occurred.

On 'sound excessive, but it's not', that part is somewhat reasonable due to the caliber of the weapon the alleged victim used. A .22 is not noted for 'stopping power' on any scale of measure, whatever. However, it's not an absolute either. One well placed shot could work, 9 badly-placed shots might not work. If the first shot incapacitates the alleged aggressor, 8 more shots is morally, and legally unreasonable.

But "You shoot until the attacker is no longer moving, breathing, etc." is, from a legal AND moral standpoint, the worst possible advice ever. If the alleged aggressor drops her weapon and attempts to flee, contiuing to fire because the alleged aggressor is still breathing and moving, would be a very, very bad thing to have to explain to a prosecutor.

Morally, AND legally hazardous.


Makes it sort of hard to defend the use of firearms in self defense with a straight face when you have all this crazy shit flying around.

[taurus145]

150. Keep floating by in LaLa Land

When you get a clue, I'll bother with a substantive reply.

[SteveM]

101. The "nine-shot" gun was a .22. It can kill, but not readily disable...

This is why self-defense experts recommended much heavier (larger) calibers which have the capacity to "stop" a threat; i.e., disable the attacker, cause the attacker to drop like a sack of potatoes, etc. Even with a heavy caliber weapon, the recommendation is to shoot again. I would not choose to use a .22 as a self-defense weapon, but if it were the only one available, I would probably fire it until the threat was neutralized.

[geckosfeet]

5. Not going to argue the self defense point. But the phrase "good shoot"

when referring to the killing of your neighbor (or anyone - including criminals) is somehow disconcerting.

I am dismayed at the popularity of the phrase. It is yet another reason why people are afraid of guns and gun owners.

It somehow sanitizes and seems to condone what is a horrifying affair for everyone concerned. As if shooting anyone at anytime, including self defense is good thing. Like it's time for belly laughs and back pats all around.

I feel that self-defense shootings are better described as what they are - 'justified shooting'. It seems less deceptive, more accurate and descriptive.

[safeinOhio]

11. It is a tragedy.

The term "good shoot" demeans reasonable supporters of the Second Amendment. To say it was "legitimate use of self defense" is more appropriate and would help the cause of gun rights.

[aikoaiko]

22. If someone wrote "good killing" then I would see your point.

But "good shoot" and "justified shooting" is equivalent in meaning in my mind but with simpler words.

If someone was justified in using lethal force it very well might be a horrifying event for him or her and I have no problems with reassuring that person that it was justified by calling it a "good shoot".

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Justifiable Homicide or Excusable Homicide, depending on state statute.

Good shoot/Justified Shooting/Righteous Shoot, and all the rest are euphamisms, with no purpose other than to spin the perceptions of the reader.

Side note: spin is highly offensive to people who can see right through it.

[Euromutt]

39. I see your point, and in the abstract I agree, but what it comes down to is...

... that the phrase "good shoot" or "righteous shoot" is easier to type than "tragic and unfortunate but ultimately justified shoot, given the circumstances."

I'll admit that I personally do not care for the term "righteous shoot(ing)" because a "righteous" person, strictly speaking, is one who is by nature justified in all his actions (even the apparently wrongful ones) because he enjoys divine sanction. And being an atheist, I don't believe in divine sanction. So personally, I prefer to speak of a "justified shooting (given the circumstances)," but frankly, I don't consider it worth the effort to dispute every use of the phrase "righteous shoot."

[AtheistCrusader]

109. No need.

The term may vary by state, but it's Justifiable Homicide or Excusable Homicide:

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.




RCW 9A.16.030
Homicide — When excusable.

Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or without any unlawful intent.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Well you would hope so after 9 chances

LOL

[asdjrocky]

24. You've never seen anyone shot and killed have you?

[Euromutt]

40. I used to work for a UN war crimes tribunal

Specifically, I worked in the Evidence Unit for a while. At the very least, I saw the forensic evidence resulting from people being shot and killed, such as coroners' reports, and photos taken by investigators in the immediate aftermath of the Racak massacre.

It may surprise you, but none of that has turned me against guns. It's certainly turned me against certain people being given access to guns, but when that fails and that kind of people manage to get hold of guns all the same, the best bet anyone has to prevent a massacre from occurring is to make sure that the prospective victims have the opportunity to return fire.

Part of the pattern of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in 1992 would be that, a week or two prior to the actual cleansing, the local cops plus some members of the predominant ethnicity's nationalist political party militia would round the target village to collect any firearms, ostensibly to ensure that the guns didn't fall into the hands of subversive elements. In truth, it was to make sure that when the paramilitaries rolled into town to loot, rape, murder and forcibly displace, they wouldn't have to worry about anyone shooting at them.

It's a tempting notion that pro-RKBA types simply don't understand (or even refuse to understand) the nasty results of firearm violence, and that if only they did, they'd beat their guns into plowshares and forever eschew the firearm. In actual fact, proponents of private ownership of firearms understand very well the potentially nasty consequences of violent crime, and precisely because of that favor that those not generally inclined to unjustly inflict violence on their fellow man not be deprived of the means to stop those who are inclined towards violence.

The point is, not all violence is morally equivalent; while an armed robber shooting a 7-11 clerk and a homeowner shooting a burglar both have the same result if taken free of context--to wit, both result in a prematurely deceased young adult male--the death of the store clerk is an actual loss to society, whereas the death of the burglar is, not to put too fine a point on it, a gain. Oh ,all right, substitute a mugger for the burglar if you haven't been convinced burglars are scum by dint of having actually ever been burgled.

[oneshooter]

44. I have, more times than I wanted too.

0311 with two tours in RVN.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Use the term righteous next time. It infuriates the gun grabbers.

[aikoaiko]

3. The details outlined in the paper suggest that the shooting was justified.

As long as the facts and evidence fit the shooter's story, there is no reason to file charges.

Some people may wonder about the number of shots. If this was a .22lr pistol, then the pistol shot very small bullets that would not
"knock a person down" or cause a tremendous amount of physical damage with each shot. But cumulatively they could and it might only take 3-5 seconds to fire 9 shots at close range.

[fasttense]

4. Sounds like self defense. n/t

[rfranklin]

6. Why did he open the door?

Could there have been another way to handle this that did not result in a killing?

I would have called the police and let them handle it if possible.

(And, yes, I do own a handgun.)

[aikoaiko]

8. Maybe he thought there was a chance the neighbor needed help or was in danger herself.

:shrug:

[rfranklin]

9. Sounds like there was a history here...

According to the story he had his gun hidden behind his back. Why?

[aikoaiko]

14. It doesn't sound like there was any history in particular.

Pounding at the door at 2 am will get my gun out too. Seeing that it is a neighbor might get the door open because she might be in danger, but I would still keep the weapon at the ready because even neighbors can be dangerous.

The article suggests someone called about her party, but doesn't say that it was the neighbor who ended up having to defend himself.

Other than that there is no detail in the story to suggest any history.

[rfranklin]

30. Use a little logic based on life experience...

I would wager a twenty there was a history there.

[michreject]

18. You shouldn't answer the door with an exposed gun

If there is no threat, you can get into some serious trouble.

[TorchTheWitch]

19. he asked her if she was armed

So he opened the door knowing she could be armed and could have the desire to shoot him. This sounds to me more like he wanted a final confrontation with her where he came out on top. But, if I had a neighbor with a gun and the desire to shoot me I suppose I'd rather take the opportunity of a final confrontation to be permanently rid of such a person rather than live on constant fear of the neighbor with a gun and the desire to shoot me.

[aikoaiko]

23. Its not clear if he asked that after he opened the door and saw her with something in her hand

or before he opened the door.

It may be there was history, but the article doesn't contain any details to suggest there was.

[TorchTheWitch]

27. the articile doesn't say he asked if she was armed after seeing something in her hand

All it says is that he asked if she was armed. He grabbed his own gun and hid it behind his back, and asked her if she was armed, so it seems pretty clear that he knew before opening the door to her that she may have a gun and a desire to shoot him.

[aikoaiko]

28. We don't know when he opened the door in relation to his question to her.

Some people are suggesting there was a bad history or he knew she had bad intent when he opened the door. I don't see anything in the article to suggest that. I offered an alternative speculation to those who speculate.

[TorchTheWitch]

31. sorry, but his account suggests there was a problem

He got his gun and hid it behind his back before opening the door to his neighbor pounding on it after a party she had in which she believed he called the cops on her. He asked her if she had a gun which suggests he knew her to be someone who had one and may have brought it with the intent to do him harm. All of these actions on his part suggest there was a problem and that he knew or had reason to believe he would have need to protect himself from an armed and angry neighbor. It doesn't suggest that he is in any way at fault, in fact, it suggests that he had a looney neighbor that was armed and came to his house to do him harm.

[aikoaiko]

33. I think you are assuming a lot about what he knew and why he did what he did.

We don't know if he even knew she had a party let along knew that she was there because she thought he called the police on her.

We don't know why he asked her if she had a gun. Perhaps your scenario is accurate and that he had reason to believe she would have a gun, but perhaps he asked when he saw something that looked like a gun in her hand.

We don't know when he opened the door or why.

I'll leave it at that.

[iverglas]

73. Got google maps, AA?

What's wrong with you people? Don't actually want to know facts?

His home is directly across a residential cul-de-sac road from hers. Her yard space is parallel to the front of his house.

Sure, he'd never notice a party there that, er, someone called the cops about.

Nah. Course not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. The district attorney knows the actual facts and decided he was justified. Get over it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

77. What Grand Jury?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Sorry the DA fixed it.

[Tejas]

51. Thank goodness you're not on the Grand Jury

To scramble an article that easily in your mind takes effort.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Point out where it says he opened the door after he asked her if she was armed.

[madokie]

15. I won't fault the man for what he did

it very well could have been him on the ground with a bunch of holes in his body he wasn't born with. She chose the battle and she chose the weapons. nothing more need be said. shes dead and hes a free man to continue his life as best he can. No where did I read that he was a threat to anyone at anytime. so take your bleeding heart and patch it up before all your blood drains out. :hi:

[Tejas]

43. Agreed, where is the outrage over a drunk at 2am with a gun?

"my momma didn't do nothing"

[madokie]

7. you have a right to protect yourself and family

if you get the drop on some idiot getting ready to shoot you or threatening you or your family then you are the better person, methinks.. In the heat of the battle if he emptied his clip matters not, she may have or may not have been dead after the first shot but it doesn't matter she was wrong in what she did and it cost her her life.

bet she won't make that mistake again.

[rfranklin]

10. Warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it?

A great holiday story.

[Tejas]

42. Yes, an armed idiot goes after a neighbor but winds up dead. - nt

[TorchTheWitch]

16. she obviously won't be making that mistake again since she's dead

If the guy is telling the truth that she pointed a gun at him then he was justified in protecting himself by shooting her. Shooting her 9 times is overkill but I won't condemn him for it seeing as fear and panic could certainly account for that.

[madokie]

21. In the heat of the moment pretty much covers it

I feel for the dude and what he'll have to deal with for the rest of his life, doubtful that he can just go on and not think about what happened over and over again. He did not chose this, he should not be bugged by others for having the presence of mind to do what he, I'm sure, would not have chose to do if things were differently

[TorchTheWitch]

25. I don't see how anyone can be expected to be calm cool and collected

with someone pointing a gun at them. Overkill in such a situation I would think would be a normal and acceptable reaction.

[PavePusher]

48. In self-defense there is no such thing as "over-kill".

You either survive, or you don't.

See my post #45 as to why 9 shots with a .22 caliber pistol is in no way "over-kill".

[no_hypocrisy]

13. What about the option of calling 911 instead of self defense?

[michreject]

20. End result would have been the same

The Police would have shot her. She got a head start on her journey to the next existence.

[aikoaiko]

26. Once she raised the gun which is when he need to defend himself...

... its a little late to call the police.

Perhaps you think he shouldn't have opened the door for a neighbor in the first place. As I posted up thread, there was always the chance that she was in danger and needed help.

[rfranklin]

29. "Who's there?" "What do you want?"

That wasn't so hard, was it?

[aikoaiko]

32. Maybe he did, and maybe she wasn't clear because she was drunk.

All we have are the few details in the story. You asked up thread why he answered the door and I suggested a decent reason. You also imagine that there is some history (not discussed in the article) in some attempt to recast the story for some reason.

Heck even if there was a history, there is nothing culpable about him opening his front door to talk to her.

[PavePusher]

49. And by asking those questions...

she was obligated to tell the truth and reply that she was there to threaten him with a gun and perhaps shoot him.

Right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[slackmaster]

38. If he was smart, he probably did call 911 after the shooting

That's what ever decent self-defense class teaches you to do.

[PavePusher]

47. If someone is already aiming a gun at you...

at what point do you call 911?

[michreject]

17. I would have went to slide lock myself

One of my hand guns is 18+1. Shoot until the threat is over.

[Echo In Light]

35. Nobody wants to live next door to the armed, belligerent, mentally ill person when they finally snap

Yikes

[slackmaster]

36. Magazine

Not clip.

[chrisa]

37. While every death is a tragedy,

This does appear to be self-defense. I'm sure the neighbor is riddled with guilt, though.

[JonQ]

50. Probably not wise to announce that you have a gun

while threatening someone who is also holding a gun.

Darwin wins yet another round.

[iverglas]

52. (a) don't open the door

(b) call the police


Nah. Too easy. And not enough blood.

[aikoaiko]

55. That's not very neighborly to refuse to open the door when your neighbor knocks hard at 2 am

It could have been an emergency.

The story doesn't provide enough details to know if he could be certain that the knocking neighbor was the aggressor, in need of aid, or announcing some other emergency.

[Pavulon]

57. Last time that happened here

my neighbor's husband was having what turned out to be a stroke. My wife was home and was able to care for him on the scene. Had we not answered he probably would have been fine, but a wrong call from an emt or resident could have delayed his treatment. Considering her e med background I am glad I opened the door.

I did have a pistol in my waitband.

[iverglas]

58. y'all got soundproof doors there?

And no windows?


What a lot of disingenuous drek in this thread. Quelle surprise.

Got Google Maps? You'll need whitepages.com first to get the address of the Nash household. Or just rely on me; I looked it up already. Use satellite view.

The two residences are directly across the street from each other near the corner of a cul-de-sac. One address is around the corner just north of the address given in the news article, but the lots are directly opposite. The driveway to the Nash household seems to be off the cul-de-sac the other household is on, and the Nash household appears to have its yard along the cul-de-sac.

There aren't actually a lot of other residences in the area. To the west, commercial properties; to the east of the Nash household, vacant land. One residence east of the other household, three more south in the same block.

Not a lot of choice when it comes to guessing which neighbour made the noise complaint. The chances that it was the one whose home directly faces the yard where the party was undoubtedly taking place would seem rather high.

If someone is smart enough to take a loaded gun to answer a wee-hours door-pound, not that this takes an enormous amount of smarts, I think he's smart enough to know perfectly well who the person at the door is, even if she isn't already hollering. Certainly I will assume that he's got the mental wherewithal to formulate the complex question: "Who's there?" Someone here mentioned "life experience". He may even have done that very thing in the past in response to a knock at a door, or heard it done on the telly.

But hey, she wasn't somebody's mother or daughter or sister or spouse or teacher or employee. She was and only was an obnoxious drunk with a gun. I'm sure we all know that I hold no brief for obnoxious drunks with guns. I also hold no brief for people who, for reasons known only to them, open the door to obnoxious drunks who they suspect have guns and shoot them dead. All they have to do is not answer the door.

But as I said: too easy, and not enough blood. For the baying pack here, anyhow.

[oneshooter]

59. Welcome back Iverglas, Every thing going ok? N/T

[iverglas]

92. nah ...

Eye surgery in Sept got rid of the floating gunk (vitrectomy) and fixed the mis-installed lens, and removed the scar tissue from my retina ... but left me not really seeing. Retinal surgeon is one of those major hotshots who thinks he doesn't have to talk to you. Apparently his partner is twice as rude, per general opinion including staff at my ophthalmologist's office, er, "eye care centre", so I was lucky. Anyhow, I enquire at second post-op appointment why I, like, can't see, and he barks ASTIGMATISM. Well okay then. Now I know. Then he grudgingly offers up 7.5 words along the lines of how the incision to replace the lens had to be bigger than the original one so: astigmatism. Like I guess we lawyers and mere total laypeople are supposed to know that redoing a lens implant takes a bigger incision, and bigger incisions cause astigmatism. Duh. Silly moi.

Anyhow, I'm not sure but it may be improving. Draw an X on paper and draw an upright cross through it, so you get a snowflake. A couple of weeks ago I could only see the \ line, really. I mean, I knew the others were there, but that's not quite the same as being able to read, fr instance. Now I can see the | and / and — lines a little better. I think. Who am I to say?

Meanwhile ... the glaucoma is permanent of course, caused by the steroids needed to treat the pseudophakic cystoid macular edema after the first regular old cataract surgery three years ago. But it's doing well. Problem is, opthalmologist (considerably cheerier and more loquacious), when I get tossed back to him last month, says: CME. Er ...? Cystoid macular edema. Oh, right, of course, CME. Whaddayaknow. I tell him that I asked the bleeding retinal surgeon whether there might be, because I thought I was seeing the telltale mauvy blotch in mid-vision, and he said no. Yes, says ophthalmologist. So ... it's off the expensive CME-exacerbating glaucoma drug this month, and back on two expensive glaucoma-causing steroid drugs! Yay!

Can't you just hardly wait until you have universal single public payer health insurance?! You too will be able to have multiple high-paid superdocs quibbling over your eyeball and tossing off scripts like they're dealing poker hands. All for free. (Not the drugs though, where I'm at, and no private plan in this self-employed household.) Such good fortune.

So if the astigmatism doesn't right itself, and I really haven't become enough of an astigmatism expert to know about that ... oh, but I'm hoping that the fucking stitch the ophthalmologist yanked out with his pointy tweezers two weeks ago (here, let me aim my teeny pointy tweezers at your eyeball, SIT STILL), in addition to stopping the itch and irritation and bloodshotness it was causing w/o me knowing it was there, might have a salutory effect on the astigmatism. But if not, maybe laser surgery! Yippeeee! More people screwing around with my eyeball while I'm awake.

There. You asked. I just love typing pseudophakic cystoid macular edema. Saying it fast to people like my new GP is even more fun. Runs in the family. My mum impressed hell out of her GP a while back by saying "Ottawa Ankle Rules". - What, he said, how do you (you 80-yr-old laywoman you) know about the Ottawa Ankle Rules? - Because my daughter breaks her foot regularly and has become an expert in applying them to herself ... As a result of which I get to say "fifth metatarsal" regularly too, and those in the know go Oh yeah, the old fifth metatarsal ... (Google yer Ottawa Ankle Rules; one of Canada's contributions to cost-control in the healthcare systems of the world.)

There you are. And my cats are all still dead.

[rd_kent]

102. Why is it that everyone you come into contact with is a rude asshole?

You are either an asshole magnet or you cause them to act like assholes. I wonder which it is? I know which I think it is.

[eqfan592]

105. That's why I've had her on ignore for so long :P

I know others here say she's actually had valuable insight at times on the issues, but in my experience, she does nothing to crank out one straw-man after another, and do her level headed best to be as insulting as possible. What I find amusing is that she still tries to reply to my postings, with the usual drivel I'm sure. :P

[rd_kent]

110. I mean, that was a real sad story...

and if that was a one time occurrence where someone was a real asshole to her, I could have some sympathy. But it seems that EVERYONE she comes into contact with is an asshole, so that leads me to believe one of two things, that EVERYONE is just and asshole or that she CAUSES everyone to be an asshole. Considering my dealing with her here on DU and the nature of all of her posts, I am inclined to got with the second option. Its just too hard to believe that EVERYONE she meets is an asshole.......

[iverglas]

116. post 115 4 U

2.

Mutatis mutandis.

[iverglas]

115. oh look, a post all about moi

Sadly, not for long.

You use that "ignore" button, you use it. And then you shut the fuck up.

[rd_kent]

123. You really should take you own advice.

As long as you continue to post your hateful drivel, I will continue to respond and point out what shit it is.


And I notice you failed to respond to my question on whether everyone you meet is an asshole or of your behavior causes them to be an asshole. But we really already know the answer to that, don't we.

[iverglas]

126. oh goodie

And I notice you failed to respond to my question on whether everyone you meet is an asshole or of your behavior causes them to be an asshole.

I do love a good round of loaded questions.

Were you born dumb, or did you have to work your way up from imbecilic? Born nasty, or studied for years to get that way?

Do you stalk me because you love me madly, or because you've lost your specs and it's the surest way you have of getting to the right place?

Over to you.

[rd_kent]

127. There is no stalking going on here. Your posts BEG to be responded to, as they are so inflammatory.

And reading this last one, I am still reminded as to why everyone you meet is an asshole to you.

[iverglas]

114. why is it that every question asked here contains a lie as a premise?

I referred to one individual who is, I might say, rude and a bit of a jerk. There are numerous comments on websites devoted to reviews of doctors that say worse (but more so about his partner). When the eye-chart technician at the opthalmologist's office asked what I thought of him, I said I thought he was a bit rude. Ha, she said; you should meet his partner, Dr. X. I said so I'd heard, reading on the net. She was fascinated to hear there were such websites. No, sorry, not going to tell you which Drs at which websites.

Four docs involved in this tale. The one who buggered up my eye three years ago. I was really really happy with him. Took the time needed, explained everything with little whiteboard drawings and words, treated me like I was the peer I am. Buggered up my eye. The new opthalmologist is a little pressed for time, running a bit of an assembly line with multiple stations for multiple tests and scans and so on, and buzzing with staff. I'm happy with him. My new GP is a honey. She's been the co-vivant's, for years, at the clinic closer to home than the one I've gone to for 35 years, and I finally made the switch. That one, I did get fed to the teeth with, not so much my doc, who is just kind of tiny and perfect and ineffectual in our particular relationship, but the evolution of the place so far toward bureaucratization and serving special needs populations in the urban core (from the radical concept community clinic it was when I was a member in on the ground floor and we downtown activist types were its lifeblood) that I just felt surplus to requirements. Then there was the optometrist I took myself off to in the interim who had to pick herself up off the floor when she got my pressure reading (and referred me to the nice but busy opthalmologist, who referred me to the retinal surgeon). The neighbourhood is very Chinese-Canadian, and the chain optical store caters to that population, of course, so she was young and Chinese-speaking with not perfect English, and seemed to specialize in kids. Every time I read a line on the chart, she'd say Good for yooo. Made you feel kinda safe. ;)

So there we are. A very nice but somehow flawed opthalmologist; a quite nice but slightly hurried opthalmologist; a very curt but manageable retinal surgeon; a honey of a GP, and a sweetheart of an optometrist. And a terrific intake nurse at the eye care hospital, and very pleasant pre-op nurses, and nice tea ladies ... although whoever was scrubbing at my circum-eye skin with sandpaper while I was sedated to the gills, at my demand, seemed to be a bit of a sadist.

Now, what was your problem? I seem to run into rude assholes?

Well, eye surgeries and other medical whatnots aside, you may have a point.

[rd_kent]

138. Wow, if a point ever DIDN'T fly over your head, I would be amazed.....

[iverglas]

141. yeah

Assholes follow me around. You thought I wasn't noticing?

[rd_kent]

145. After an extended absence....

you post all over creation. And because I respond to some of your posts, Im following you around? I dont see it that way.

[iverglas]

152. all over creation?

I think maybe in a half dozen threads here in good old Guns, and a couple in another forum. Wow, look at me go.

But ... keeping track, are you?? Huh. As I was saying ...

[rd_kent]

154. Of the dozen or so posts you chose, there you name is ALL OVER the threads in just a day.

Kinda hard not to notice that, especially when it contains such crap.

[proteus_lives]

60. Only you would would spit on this person for defending their life.

[iverglas]

62. I, but not only I, have the honesty to state the truth

This individual's life may have been in jeopardy only because of the situation he put himself in.


I keep wondering ...

If Drug Dealer A rips off Drug Dealer B, and DDB comes knocking at DDA's door, and DDA (entirely reasonably) fears for his life, is DDA entitled to shoot and kill DDB?

How about if DDA has a criminal record for drug trafficking and, oh, armed robbery already? How come s/he wouldn't be allowed to be in legal possession of a firearm? Obviously s/he is in need of one to defend his/her life, because there's DDB knocking on the door with a gun in his/her hand ...


I also wonder ...

What was Nash doing with a handgun? Just imagine, if she hadn't had access to one, none of it would have happened.


Nine shots fired. Did they all hit her? In that case, I echo the questions asked earlier: she was evidently standing right in front of him. In what universe are nine bullets needed to avert a perceived danger to one's life at that distance? Did seven of them miss? Just lucky there weren't any partygoers or passersby in the line of fire, in that case, I guess.


Fucking alternative universe you people inhabit, don't you? One designed by M.C. Escher, with the script by Ionesco, evidently.

[X_Digger]

64. 22lr != 9mm.. but you knew that, right?

Nine shots fired. Did they all hit her? In that case, I echo the questions asked earlier: she was evidently standing right in front of him. In what universe are nine bullets needed to avert a perceived danger to one's life at that distance? Did seven of them miss? Just lucky there weren't any partygoers or passersby in the line of fire, in that case, I guess.

And imagine she had great big axes strapped to her feet.. or imagine he had a 65lb tumor on his left ear..

Yah, just as relevant as your supposition that _any_ of the bullets missed their mark.

...in that case, I guess.

Yah, you do guess.

A 22lr is only 20% larger than a pellet / bb from an air gun. Coming from an average pistol their energy is about 115ft-lbs. If it was a 22 short or 22 long (as opposed to long rifle) the energy could be as low as 50ft-lbs. For comparison, a 9mm has ~340 ft-lbs of energy. 22lr is considered too weak for self-defense, because it has so little stopping power. Even the 9mm has fallen out of favor with police due to it's inability to stop someone quickly.

For comparison:


(9mm = 5th, 22lr = last)

[eqfan592]

65. Ok, gonna give this a shot, from right to left, and mind you I'm not very good at this...

.22lr (given by you)
.380 auto
9mm (given by you also)
.45 acp
.22 mag
7.62x25mm Tokarev (this one is something of a guess to say the least)
.38 special


Like I said, I'm not all that great at this, so I hope I didn't just embarrass myself, but I thought I'd be fun to give it a try :)

[Hoopla Phil]

72. I'd guess the exact same thing.

[iverglas]

70. well hey, they did the job, eh?

What are you saying here? That it took 9 of them to kill her?


Yah, just as relevant as your supposition that _any_ of the bullets missed their mark.

Nah, but I did say I was one of the few honest ones arond here, didn't I?

One doesn't even have to be honest one's self to recognize your allegation that I supposed anything for what it is.


In what universe are nine bullets needed to avert a perceived danger to one's life at that distance? Did seven of them miss? Just lucky there weren't any partygoers or passersby in the line of fire, in that case, I guess.

For your edification, "in that case" means "if so". I didn't say it was so. I asked questions. Got any answers?

[TPaine7]

83. An intellectually honest person who had spent years debating this subject on DU

would understand that killing this woman was not a legitimate objective.


What are you saying here? That it took 9 of them to kill her?

If the first shot was fatal, that would hardly help him if she was able to kill him before bleeding out. And if she was still standing with a gun in hand after 8 shots, she was still a threat. Police often shoot more times with actual close combat rounds and total justification.

The gun control reality distortion field has you. If it didn't you would have gotten these basic principles long ago.

[iverglas]

85. if the dog hadn't stopped to piss

And if she was still standing with a gun in hand after 8 shots, she was still a threat.

If, if, if ...

If that's all you got, boo hoo for you, eh?

[TPaine7]

104. Of course that's not all I have

Of course that's not all I have, as any literate person can see. I also have this:

Police often shoot more times with actual close combat rounds and total justification.

Intellectually honest folks who have been debating this for years know that police often fire more than 9 rounds at an armed attacker. They would also realize that police use much more powerful rounds.

Those are well established facts, not suppositions.

Those who can reason from data would understand how silly it is to critcize someone for defending his life using 9 shots from a pitifully underpowered mousegun.

How is it that you can still ask if that's all I have when you've just read more? The gun control reality distortion field just snatched the information from you, didn't it? Either that or it prevented you from understanding it in the first place.

You are living proof of the gun control reality distortion field's strength.

[iverglas]

117. people over the age of 5

can distinguish between on-duty police and the nob in this story.

At least if they've had it explained to them as many times as I've explained it here, they can. But I think most 5-yr-olds probably could anyway.

[TPaine7]

120. Your "point" was about the number of shots required to "KILL" her.

And, by odd coincidence, that was what I addressed.

That question has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the shooter is employed by the state, Your Sophistry's thrashing and sputtering notwithstanding.

Congratulations, though. I think that little trick would have gotten by most 5 year olds. It's some of your better work.

[iverglas]

121. number of shots "required" to kill her?

Where did this requirement come from? I thought we were in agreement that this was not the objective!!!

So I'm still trying to figure out what yr point was.

Maybe you know where all 9 of those bullets went and what they did. Do tell, eh?

And keep pretending that cops and nobs don't have different objectives, if you like. And even that somebody was saying something that depended on cops being "employed by the state". It's mildly amusing.

[TPaine7]

122. Yawn

Where did this requirement come from? I thought we were in agreement that this was not the objective!!!

I know killing her is not a legitimate objective. You didn't (or pretended not to). Correcting your defective premise was part of my response. Get a trusted adult to explain the flow of the discussion to you.

So I'm still trying to figure out what yr point was.

I bet you are. See my suggestion regarding a trusted adult above.

Maybe you know where all 9 of those bullets went and what they did. Do tell, eh?

No, I don't. But I do know that statistically speaking, POLICE ARE MORE LIKELY TO SHOOT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS IN DEFENSIVE SHOOTINGS THAN CIVILIANS ARE, AND BY A WIDE MARGIN. It is telling that some poor folks under the thrall of the gun control reality distortion field worry far more about 9 shots from a mouse gun than they do about dozens of shots from combat pistols THAT ARE STATISTICALLY MANY TIMES MORE LIKELY TO INJURE THE INNOCENT.

And keep pretending that cops and nobs don't have different objectives, if you like.

How do things work in your reality? Do cops who have guns drawn on them empty their weapons in order to ensure a good grain harvest? Is defending their lives not even a remote concern? Really?

And even that somebody was saying something that depended on cops being "employed by the state".

Cops are simply a subset of state employees authorized to possess and carry weapons even under the gun control reality distortion field. I was just being inclusive, as you well know--or should know, it's hard to tell with that distortion field buzzing around you.

It's mildly amusing.

For you, maybe. It's getting painfully boring for me. The quality of your sophistry has gone downhill; are you feeling well?

In any event, anyone who can't see through your BS in this exchange deserves to believe you--or couldn't be helped anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

142. The article says where all nine bullets went. Reading is basic.

No charges will be filed in the death of a 42-year-old Mesa County woman who was shot nine times in the driveway of a neighbor who said he fired his gun in self-defense.

Woman was shot nine times. That means nine bullets in her body. Now how many shots did the gun hold?

The man then shot Nash, emptying all nine rounds in the clip of his handgun.

Oh, Lookie. The handgun held nine rounds in the magazine. (Ignorant reporter doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.)

Nine in the gun at the start, nine in the body at the end. All accounted for. See how easy that was?

[X_Digger]

91. Useless supposition..

.. designed to put the shooter in the worst light possible.

But hey, I can engage in the same 'what-if' as you..

Maybe, being drunk, she was still standing after 2 rounds of 22.. and after 3.. and 4 ... and 7.. and even 8.

[iverglas]

93. Post 90

Been there over 2 hours, it had.

Puts paid to some of the useless suppositions, anyhow, eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. After all where there are no guns nothing bad ever happens to anyone right Ivy.

In your drug dealer scenario, my guess is he wouldn't be charged with murder just like in this case but he would be charged with illegal possession of a firearm. Hope that clears it up for you.

[TPaine7]

79. Liberalism / progressivism |= the kneejerk defense of violent felons

despite Your Sophistry's best efforts to convince us otherwise.

I keep wondering ...

If Drug Dealer A rips off Drug Dealer B, and DDB comes knocking at DDA's door, and DDA (entirely reasonably) fears for his life, is DDA entitled to shoot and kill DDB?

How about if DDA has a criminal record for drug trafficking and, oh, armed robbery already? How come s/he wouldn't be allowed to be in legal possession of a firearm? Obviously s/he is in need of one to defend his/her life, because there's DDB knocking on the door with a gun in his/her hand ...

I bet you do keep wondering why poor, innocent CONVICTED VIOLENT FELONS are denied the RKBA while those dangerous lunatics with perfect records are allowed the free(r) exercise of their rights. No doubt it boggles your mind.

Indeed, drug dealers and good folks with convictions for armed felonies are the only types of people whose freedom to keep and bear arms you've ever defended (with the possible exceptions of the criminally insane, state employees and those who guard financial wealth), aren't they?

There are some things the morally and logically challenged will never understand. Just accept it.

[iverglas]

80. I thought you might have grown up / grown a conscience in my absence

Well, actually, I didn't think anything about you at all. But there you are, and there you haven't.

Indeed, drug dealers and good folks with convictions for armed felonies are the only types of people whose freedom to keep and bear arms you've ever defended (with the possible exceptions of the criminally insane, state employees and those who guard financial wealth), aren't they?

Nope. Anything else?

If so, do try to locate whatever you've got that passes for a conscience before spewing it, maybe.

[TPaine7]

81. I forgot infants and dangerous traitors, didn't I?

You may accept that farmers can have weapons to kill pests and defend against wildlife, but that is not the same thing as defending their rights--or, as Your Sophistry would put it, their "rights." You have consistently defended violent felons' right to arms, however, while sneering at innocent people's rights.

"Law abiding citizens" (read with a sneer) should not be allowed to "festoon" themselves with weapons or have hanguns in their homes--they could become criminals at any moment. Convicted violent felons, however, have a RKBA that deserves our respect. Isn't that it, in a nutshell?

Well, actually, I didn't think anything about you at all.

After all the bitter tears I shed in your absence, that really smarts.

Sniff...

[iverglas]

82. oh well

You have consistently defended violent felons' right to arms, however, while sneering at innocent people's rights.

Let me know when you learn to distinguish truth from lies, and/or develop a preference for voicing the former, maybe.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. Yes, given the info in the article, nine .22LR shot is realistic.

That is likely all the ammo that the gun held. A .22 causes very little immediate trauma to the body. Often the person who is hit isn't even aware they have been hit.

The article leads one to conclude that the shooting took place at extremely close range. Probably so close that the firing gun was almost touching the women being shot. People who are in genuine self-defense situations tend to be rather scared and often keep shooting as long as the threat is still standing. Since a person isn't going to get knocked down by a .22LR, the defender will almost certainly continue firing until either the threat is over, or they run out of ammo. Nine shots can be rapid fired from a .22 semi-auto, or from a revolver, in about 1.5 seconds.

It would be very easy for a scared person to empty a .22 into a threat so fast that the threat would not have fallen before the gun was empty. Not unusual at all.

The shooter is quite lucky that the aggressor didn't shoot her after the shooter's fusillade was over.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. A .22 is not a good penetrator.

Especially fired from a handgun. Without a long barrel to build up pressure, you don't get the high velocities of a rifle (the 'crack' of a .22 LR is the round going supersonic, absent when the same cartridge is fired from a handgun), and without THAT, the .22 loses pretty much all useful properties, for damaging a human.

That's not to say, I wouldn't mind being shot with it, but the odds of the round flat-out stopping when hitting a rib, your skull, or any other solid piece of bone are not bad.

You can also hit someone 9 times with a .22, and while that person may eventually bleed out and die, that person still might be able to shoot you in return, if said person happened to have a gun in his or her hand.

By itself, the number of shots is not surprising or unusual, coupled with the caliber of the weapon.


If anything, my question would be more: why would anyone choose a .22 to answer the door with, if that person felt a gun might be necessary for self-defense. Maybe it's the only gun he had, idunno, but that's the question that comes to mind.

[JonQ]

157. Yeah, it's all his fault

I mean, why was he in his own home at 2 in the morning? Why did he answer the door when someone was knocking on it?

These questions don't have easy answers.

At the very least these are suspicious behaviors. Most likely he is a meth dealer, or possible serial killer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Most nice people open the door when neighbors bang on them.

[iverglas]

71. Got google maps, Davy?

Most people in rural areas, I suspect, would be unhappy at being portrayed as such morons as some here are suggesting.

Nothing rural about what I'm seeing, anyhow.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. My fault I somehow got Montrose County instead of Mesa County. I fixed it though.

I've got a lot of family out there, just got back from there a couple of weeks ago. Freezers full of elk meat all the way around.

[paulsby]

86. contrary to the belief of many statists

the solution to all problems is not "call the government for help"

he saw his neighbor was knocking on the door, so he answered it.

yes, it was 2 am, but that means he shouldn't answer the door for his NEIGHBOr?

it's easy in hindsight to say "call the police", because in THIS incident, with the knowledge that she was an armed belligerent drunk, it would have been the right thing to do. he didn't know that when he heard her at the door.

[iverglas]

87. contrary to the pretense of belief of many Guns forum regulars,

neither I nor most of the world recently fell off a truck conveying root vegetables to market.

It's très amusant, really it is.

All this protesting so much about how reasonable it is to open one's door when someone - it matters not who - pounds on it at 2 a.m.

All the dogs and alarms and guns stashed within ready reach all over the house ... because you just never ever know what bogeyperson may be trying to get in and have their bogey way with you and yours and your stuff ... just open that door and say Howdy, neighbour, what can I do for you in this the oddly timed hour of your need?

Yup. I know it's just exactly what everybody here would do. Right after the police have attended at the residence across the road where a boisterous crowd had been assembled not long before. Yuppers, yessirree, you betcha, absofuckinlutely.

:rofl:

Yer a bunch o' cards, but maybe not a complete deck.

[JonQ]

162. I think it's pretty funny how the grabbers

always accuse everyone else of living in fear (why do you need guns, what are you afraid of!?!?!), but are now advocating calling the police when your neighbor knocks on your door.

Don't buy a gun out of fear, just dial 911 every time you get scared.

:rofl:

[iverglas]

164. yeah, I also advocate

eating nothing but carrots. I mean, if I said "carrots are good for you", that's obviously what I'd be doing.

Just like when I advocate calling 911 when a riled-up drunk involved in an incident the same night in which police were called, probably by me, about a neighbourhood disturbance caused by her, and I'd stood out on the street observing said police response to said disturbance, comes pounding (you'll recall) on my door, I am "advocating calling the police when your neighbor knocks on your door".

How do you stand the smell? I guess since you have no way of getting away from it, emanating from yourself as it does, you just get used to it.

[JonQ]

170. I think we should call the cops

if we ever see someone you know eating something unhealthy. I mean, you could tell them they are being unhealthy but that kind of vigilantism only spurs a new cycle of violence.

Best to just let the police handle it.

[iverglas]

173. forgive me for saying it

but that was one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

So stupid that I can't even guess at what it was supposed to be for.

[JonQ]

176. Clearly you don't read your own posts then

advocating calling the police to report your neighbors. It really doesn't deserve an honest, well-thought out response.

You shouldn't expect that you can act like a clown and not be treated as a clown.

Now dance for my amusement clown!

[JonQ]

159. Hello 911, I have an emergency

my neighbor is knocking on the door! Send help quickly, I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out.

[iverglas]

165. uh oh

I'm getting tempted to armchair psychoanalyze.

No need for the psycho- though. Not much need for the -analyze, either.

The desperate dishonesty is plain on its face.

[JonQ]

166. Look out, she's psychoanalyzing!

Call 911!

[paulsby]

169. the same ignorati

who claim that those who choose to carry concealed are LIVING IN FEAR are the ones saying "call the government call the government" for every little thing.

one thing i learned, having lived part of my life in da country, is that "a country boy can survive"

they don't need to call their mommy govt. for every little thing

[iverglas]

174. "they don't need to call their mommy govt. for every little thing"

And what a damned little thing this was!

So little that it called for someone to be killed.

Oh, but obviously not because somebody was afraid. Nah. Although, if that wasn't the case, one wonders what explanation was offered ...

Let us not hear that you have ever called the government for anything, at all, ever. I don't think you could top a situation that called for someone to be killed, so that leaves an empty set.

[JonQ]

177. Once my nightlight went out

I tried to call 911 but it was dark, so I couldn't find the phone, and I was so scared.

I finally did find it, but that was 35 minutes of pure terror that I will never forget. The monster in my closet came very close to getting me. Never again.

:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

61. Did what he had to do.

When are the antis going to start talking about banning booze?

[iverglas]

63. what did he have to do?

Open his door?

Who sez?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. I have a gun and I'm going to use it. DOH! Stupid becomes dead quite often.

[iverglas]

90. and the facts dribble out

http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091211/COMMUNITY_NEWS/912109983/1007&parentprofile=1059

copying as length limits allow, avoiding repeating anything already noted in this thread and leaving everyone at liberty to read the entire article:

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said that his review of the situation led him to conclude there was “absolutely no likelihood of disproving self defense.”

Hmm. A ringing endorsement.

Hautzinger said an investigation revealed the incident was rooted in a “rather loud and raucous party” that took place at the residence of Nash, 42, who lived across the street from Jarvis.

... While at the location the deputies also spoke with Jarvis, who happened to be standing outside his home and “in plain view of all the persons” of the Nash residence.

Why, just no reason at all for Nash or anybody else to think he was the one who made the complaint!

“She decided to go across the street and confront Mr. Jarvis,” he said. “In doing so she was carrying a Ruger 9mm handgun.”

Two men, who were apparently trying to “dissuade her,” pursued Nash, he said. Jarvis saw she was coming. At some point Nash pounded on his door. When Jarvis opened the door he “saw that she had a gun in her hands.”

Oh no, Paco! You mean he knew who was at the door, and knew exactly why she was there and what state she was in before he opened it?? Heavens to Betsy. Imagine that.

... One other man was injured in the shooting. He was treated at a local hospital and later released.

Huh.




formatting fixed

[iverglas]

95. it is always just such a giggle

to post these little updates and watch them get so very studiously ignored, why, you'd almost think they were invisible, wouldn't you?!?

[GreenStormCloud]

96. They don't change any of the basic facts.

Woman at door pointed gun as resident. Resident defended.

The drunk woman at the door may have been acting somewhat catty. That could explain the nine shots. One for each of the lives.

[rd_kent]

103. Perhaps you are just on everyones ignore list?

[iverglas]

118. perhaps that's a big part of what makes it such a giggle?

Anybody who chooses to "ignore" the facts of life in the other post with the same response rate, for instance -- MEN ASSAULT WOMEN, and MEN NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT FACT and get off their asses and do something about it, and not keep shoving the "women need to protect themselves" ... FROM MEN ... bullshit propaganda line -- well, they just kinda look like what one would expect, don't they?

Men refusing to acknowledge the facts of life, and trying to keep on shoving responsibility for the harm done to women by men onto women.

Loudmouthed shnooks burbling about good this and righteous that and maybe this and what if that, and not only not doing their own 10-second research to find out what's what, but "ignoring" it when it's served up on a platter.

Duh.

[rd_kent]

129. "Men refusing to acknowledge the facts of life" - Wow, your haterd of men is limitless.

Now I understand why you are the way you are.

[iverglas]

132. one thing you do understand

Try your shit over at Feminists and there are several reasons why you won't last long.

The Guns forum, last bastion of woman-hating woman-blaming woman-exploiting woman-trivializing woman-degrading crap at DU.

Oh, well, would that it were true.

[rd_kent]

134. Why would I ever go to a place where I was hated just for having a penis?

Thats the only reason I wouldnt last long there.

[iverglas]

140. huh

The other 51% of us spend our entire lives being hated -- and victims of hate crimes, up to and including horrific murders -- for the simple reason that we have two X chromosomes.

Allegations of man-hating are just one more tired icky expression of the same phenomenon, of course. There are so many, one stops counting by the time one gets to high school.

Gotta admit, the concept and practice of thinking of / speaking of women as cats was one I hadn't seen in a fair while. Weirdness without end, there is.

Anyhow, me, I did get violently assaulted and almost did get murdered because I'm a woman. No Other Reason. Pure hate crime.

Poor li'l you. I gather that sometimes women express their anger at being victims of hate crimes committed against them by men throughout their lives, and by women throughout human time and space, in your presence. That must really be horrific. Have a hanky.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Until rainbows come out of unicorn's butts, women would do well to be armed. N/T

And armed woman is much more difficult to assault than an unarmed one. The attacker could easily end up dead from attacking an armed woman.

[AtheistCrusader]

172. Wish granted.

[GreenStormCloud]

175. LOL. OK, That's funny. But until then...

[rd_kent]

144. You experience seems to have jaded your view.

While tragic and sad, it seems your experience has led you to view all men a woman haters, and that is just not the way it is. You are hypersensitive to everything and cannot be argued with. It truly is sad that you had to have such a horrific experience, but it is sadder that you see all men through the same lens. Contrary to what you think, we are not all alike.

[iverglas]

153. I loves me an armchair psychologist!

Well, that's not accurate. I loves me a jerk pretending to psychoanalyze someone as a way of discrediting and dismissing them.

Noticed that a thread in this forum doing just was locked the other day? Heard of the ad hominem argument technique? (I call it ad locutorem myself, but I realize not everybody speaks inclusive Latin.) Ever notice how women in particular are the victims of it? "Hysterical", at all?

You, you're just silly.

You've entirely missed (or are pretending to have missed) how I ran off for a weekend of thrills and chills with a gun owner / concealed weapon permit holder from way down south last year, haven't you? Just for starters, and starting at the very end of a looong lust life. Yeah, men, keep 'em away from me. Hahahahaha.

But hey, don't let that stop you accusing a woman of being bitter and frigid in the hope that someone who hears you will stop listening to her. We wouldn't want the world to stop being a hostile and nasty place for women and girls overnight. We'd die of shock.

[rd_kent]

155. I can only comment on what you post.

And all I see from you is Misandric(sp?), anti-gun rhetoric. Maybe there is a warmer side to you, but the side of you I and everyone else in this forum know is NOT nice.

Anyway, I have grown tired of you, again.

[iverglas]

158. and I can only say that you know your words are false

There is nothing "Misandric(sp?)" in anything I say.

(Nor is there anything "anti-gun" in it. I'm not opposed to inanimate objects; I'm not psychotic. I reserve my disopprobrium for the shovers of right-wing, racist, misogynist agendas and the doers of right-wing, racist, misogynist deeds. If they use firearms and do those deeds and choose firearms as a focal point to to shove that agenda, that's their choice.)

Once again, you (and your fellow travellers) make shit up to attempt to discredit and dismiss someone whose policy positions cause you distress because they interfere in your agenda. Whatever that might be, eh?

Nice, haha, to see you're such a devoted fan. Why, there I just was, saying I tired of being Ms. Nice and I tired of wasting time on nice (everybody consult their own dictionary) arguments around here.

[rd_kent]

168. I'm sorry, were you saying something?

All I hear is blah, blah, blah.......

[PavePusher]

156. Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

Seriously, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. :rofl:

[iverglas]

161. yeah?

What, pointing at a right-wing racist misogynist thing and calling it by name is psychoanalyzing?

Not where I come from.

The personal may indeed be political, but I don't give a shit what makes someone a right-wing racist misogynist, or what childhood traumas the leaders of their movement may have suffered. Not when it comes to naming them and their agenda.

I don't have to make shit up to discredit them. Their right-wingery and racism and misogyny is visible to the world, even if occasionally you do have to dig past a layer or two of nice-sounding rights-n-freedoms rhetoric to see it.

[TPaine7]

160. Don't confuse this with the slightest interest in your

"looong lust life" which you are "at the very end of", but I do find it amazing that you would admit to associating socially with a right wing, misogynistic, racist, reactive, thuggish lunatic who feels the need to premenade around in public festooned in handguns--especially since you recently spoke of an 18 year old's disastrous irresponsibility as a justification to keep anyone (police and the usual suspects excepted, of course) from having handguns, at least in their backpacks.

Isn't the whole point of a concealed weapon permit to allow the permit holder to publicly carry a handgun concealed on his person or in a container, such as a ... gasp... backpack?

Me, I'd be doing my damnedest to make as sure as I could be that IT NEVER HAPPENED.

And that involves doing everything possible to keep handguns out of the backpacks of 18-yr-olds and, really, anybody else.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=274726&mesg_id=274763

[iverglas]

163. I don't find anything you do amazing

Don't confuse this with the slightest interest in your "looong lust life" which you are "at the very end of"

Including your ridiculous attempts to portray something as meaning something it doesn't.

If we were to describe what you'd had for breakfast throughout your life and start with today, we'd be starting right at the very end of your short and boring life, sweetums.


I do find it amazing that you would admit to associating socially with a right wing, misogynistic, racist, reactive, thuggish lunatic who feels the need to premenade around in public festooned in handguns

I'm sure you WOULD find that fact amazing, if it WERE a fact.

I find it amazing that you admit to being a dishonest cretin. Oh, did I mean I WOULD find it amazing if you DID admit to being a dishonest cretin? Huh.

'Cause I didn't say I associated with any such thing.

I have a driver's licence. I haven't driven in three years. Get it?


you recently spoke of an 18 year old's disastrous irresponsibility as a justification to keep anyone (police and the usual suspects excepted, of course) from having handguns, at least in their backpacks.

I see this semester's lessons in how to deceive are moving along. You just don't seem to quite have the hang of it yet, though. That merits about a C-.

[TPaine7]

167. Shudder

Including your ridiculous attempts to portray something as meaning something it doesn't.

If we were to describe what you'd had for breakfast throughout your life and start with today, we'd be starting right at the very end of your short and boring life, sweetums.

*shudder*

I've asked you repeatedly, and now I ask again. In the name of all that is decent, good and worthwhile, if there is the tiniest bit of human decency in you, please don't use terms of endearment on me. Even sarcastically. I am not Stalin or Hitler. I don't deserve it.

I have a driver's licence. I haven't driven in three years. Get it?

Driving is a morally acceptable activity, even under the gun control reality distortion field. Concealed carry is a right wing, misogynistic, racist, reactive, and thuggish activity--at least under the field. It's one thing to associate with a reformed and repentant Nazi, but wouldn't the sincerity of his repentance be in doubt if he still had his "permit to hunt Jews"? Or a photo of himself with the Fuhrer in his wallet? Wouldn't a repentant Nazi burn such an atrocious thing? Wouldn't a reformed right wing, misogynistic, racist, reactive, thuggish lunatic get rid of his permit to promenade in public festooned in handguns?

Hmmm.

I see this semester's lessons in how to deceive are moving along.

I wouldn't know. I haven't signed up for any of Your Sophistry's classes.

You just don't seem to quite have the hang of it yet, though. That merits about a C-.

You're right, I'm not skilled at creating BS, just at exposing it. I'm disappointed in your assessment, however. I would expect a full "F" from Your Sophistry's class in the art of bullshit (were I ever to take it).

Your words say what they say; I quoted and presented them honestly. A "C-" is far too high a grade for such honesty.

[X_Digger]

97. Injured how?

"... One other man was injured in the shooting. He was treated at a local hospital and later released."

Dove for cover and sprained his ankle? Drunk stumble into a gutter? I'd imagine if he were shot, they'd report it that way. (too salacious not to report it as such.)

[iverglas]

99. oh my

Does it hurt when you streeeeeetch that hard?

[X_Digger]

100. No stretch..

Local reports of the Ft Hood shooting made note of the fact that some of the 'injuries' were from being knocked down, tripping, etc.

[X_Digger]

146. Thanks to GSC..

No charges will be filed in the death of a 42-year-old Mesa County woman who was shot nine times in the driveway of a neighbor who said he fired his gun in self-defense.

I'm sorry, what were you saying about stretching?

[Euromutt]

149. That IS the major advantage of .22LR

Because there's not a lot of recoil, you can empty the weapon in short order with a more than decent chance of putting all your rounds into the target. The Mossad used a particular assassination technique for a whole in which two guys with Beretta 70 would both empty their weapons into the target as fast as possible and then leg it.

[GreenStormCloud]

151. And they used .22 Shorts for ammo.

The pistols were specially modified to be able to function with that ammo.

From left to right: .22 Short, .22 Long, .22 Long Rifle. The .22LR is the most common .22. You have to search around some to find the others. Most stores don't carry them.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Ok, reading this

I can see he knew who the person coming over to bang on his door was, and had reasonable justification to assume she was pissed.

I see no indication Jarvis knew for a fact she had a gun, until he opened his door. Just confirming that you seem to agree there...

[iverglas]

119. so are we in agreement

that neither you nor I, for instance, would likely have opened that door?

I mean, even up here, when the chances of the riled-up drunk having a handgun would be exceedingly slim to nil (or being such a moron as to tote it along, since it would obviously be illegally possessed; and the odds of anybody near me owning a long arm are also slim to nil, just demographically), I don't really see myself opening the door. Given what had gone on not too much earlier that night, I think I could have been pretty sure of getting pretty rapid police response, and if need be I'd have gone out the old back door and maybe to another neighbour's.

Open the door and THEN ask whether she had a gun? (Granted, once there was reason to suspect she did, but I think there was probably no ground for any reasonable certainty that she didn't, to start with.)

I think not.

Looked a bit like accepting an invitation to a brawl, to me. But then I wasn't there. No solid grounds for imputing motivation, but lack of common sense seems to be in evidence at a minimum.

If you don't confront riled-up drunks in the middle of the night, you're considerably less likely to need to defend yourself, I have to think.

[rd_kent]

124. Its always so nice to have your wisdom show us the the right way to handle things.

I mean, you always seem to have the right answer and the only way of dealing with a situation. If only it would have been handled your way.........


For some reason, I keep thinking about how everyone you come into contact with acts like an asshole and why it seems to be that way.....

[iverglas]

125. yeah ...

For some reason, I keep thinking about how everyone you come into contact with acts like an asshole and why it seems to be that way.....

And me, I keep wondering whether, if what you said there even resembled the truth, it would be because they followed me around.....

[rd_kent]

128. Sorry I had to be the one to break it to you.

I know how much you hate me, but you seemed to be living in such denial.....

[iverglas]

130. I keep throwin' 'em ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[rd_kent]

131. You are weird.

[iverglas]

133. possibly

but that was my pater's favourite cartoon character, not mine, and I gather you didn't get that either.

[rd_kent]

135. How would I know that?

[iverglas]

139. lordy

You Did Not Get The Joke.

The script goes:

I keep throwin' 'em, you keep missin' 'em.

Among other things.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. But, is she wrong?

If YOU called in a noise complaint on your loud, drunk neighbors, and later on, one came over to pound on your door, would YOU answer the door?

I mean, at this point, you would have already demonstrated the skill to pick up a phone and dial 911.


Lets say you just have a hollow-core laminate wood door, that wouldn't stand up to an angry chipmunk. You still don't open it. Hang back, call the cops.

I don't think it's unreasonable to admit, the victim did make a poor judgment in opening that door. It doesn't change whether or not he fired in self defense. But the entire thing could potentially have been avoided. Or maybe the responding police would have been forced to shoot her. Who knows. But I do know: answering the door was a bad idea.

[TPaine7]

147. If the neighbors did have history, he could have acted wisely and in

good faith.

It may be that he had good reason to believe that talking to her could diffuse the situation, while ignoring her would probably make it worse. For all we know, he may have talked her down, even with a gun, before.

There is a tendency among some gun control advocates to reflexively side against the defender and for the felon. While you definitely don't fall in that category, I think it is a mistake to condemn him for opening the door with the little information we have.

[paulsby]

171. in many, if not most shootings

or other "incidents" of any sort, it COULD have been avoided if the person did something different.

that's very frequently the case. but it also doesn't say much. i was once assaulted/robbed while i was sitting in my car at a boat launch in maui. nobody else happened to be present in the area, so i was an isolated target.

i could have avoided it if i turned around when i saw there were no other people around.

but at some point, there is a line between acting with basic common sense and prudence, and always acting like you have to expect the worse from people and from every situation.

i've gone surfing hundreds of times at isolated beaches, where i was the only one around. if i had drowned, or been robbed on any of those occasions, you could say the same thing. i could have avoided it by surfing only crowded breaks.

[AtheistCrusader]

136. Odds are good

I would never have opened that door. Suspected handgun or no, that's what the steel fire-door, deadbolt, and top bolt is for.

So, I would say at least one lapse in judgment on the part of the victim. But I agree, doesn't shed a lot of light on motivation. I think possibly just a bad choice.

[aikoaiko]

148. And these facts show us what?

The shooter did nothing illegal and nothing wrong in his actions. He answered his door? He shot someone who raised a gun to him in anger?


edited to add:

I just saw your comments...

Looked a bit like accepting an invitation to a brawl, to me. But then I wasn't there. No solid grounds for imputing motivation, but lack of common sense seems to be in evidence at a minimum.

If you don't confront riled-up drunks in the middle of the night, you're considerably less likely to need to defend yourself, I have to think.

As least you agree there is not solid ground ground for imputing his motivations. After reading some of your posts in this thread I thought you were.

[benEzra]

98. I haven't looked into the circumstances yet,

but for those focusing on the "ZOMG 9 shots from a .22" angle, keep in mind that that is around one third to one fourth of a single round of #4 buckshot from a 12-gauge. That's one reason .22 is not a particularly good defensive caliber; it is lethal, but not necessarily incapacitating (and they are not the same). As has been stated upthread, .22LR != 9mm/.357/.45.

According to Remington, a single shell of #4 buckshot fires 27 .25 caliber projectiles from a 12ga/2-3/4" shell, or 41 .25 caliber projectiles from a 12ga/3" shell, at about the same velocity as .22LR bullets from a pistol.

http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/shotshell/buckshot/express.asp