Malinowski murder by ATF

#226
#226
McDad said:
Does that change your perspective on the event we're discussing?
Click to expand...
not unless it was a known problem in the area.

I have maintained my stance from the start. the no knock part was always crap, but the shooting was justified as soon as he shot first.

heck my opinion would also change if it wasn't the dude's defense lawyer using lawyer speak to admit to criminal acts by his client. and flat out admitting his client shot first, no lawyer speak there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#227
#227
McDad said:
According to the info, this guy was a bad gun owner and irresponsible in who he sold weapons to.

He didn't deserve to die at the hands of the state because of those transgressions but the responsible gun owners should have no tolerance for the chronically irresponsible owners. They give all of us a bad name.
Click to expand...
Who gets to decide who is a responsible gun owner? The government that executed the raid?

I think they are irresponsible gun owners. What does shall not be infringed mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and McDad
#229
#229
82_VOL_83 said:
I disagree with this approach. I didn't know he was bad and chances are no one else but a few around him did either. That's like saying I need to be responsible for the way you store your guns. Nonstarter. What I am a strong supporter of is sever that warrant during the day when he is home. Find out if he is indeed bad or not and if so, prosecute that SOB to the full extent of the law. That is what I am for. I don't want to be on the wrong end of the ATF just because of the number of guns that I buy and sell in a year. That's simply a gun control excuse.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

But don't "defend" him by saying he was murdered or the cops were there without cause.
 
#230
#230
hog88 said:
Pretty sure the TN legislature has extended the castle doctrine to your vehicle.
Click to expand...
I think the nuance here is can you shoot someone breaking into your vehicle just to keep them out of the vehicle and I think the answer is pretty clearly no. I don't think TN will allow you to shoot someone stealing your car if you aren't in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#232
#232
Jxn Vol said:
Who gets to decide who is a responsible gun owner? The government that executed the raid?

I think they are irresponsible gun owners. What does shall not be infringed mean?
Click to expand...
If he is selling guns to criminals. If he is selling illegally, then he is irresponsible.

You're making a constitutional case. Fine. I am all about it.

But I am talking about acting in accordance with the law on the books. If the law is bad, change the law. If you break the law, even bad law, there are consequences.
 
#233
#233
82_VOL_83 said:
I think the nuance here is can you shoot someone breaking into your vehicle just to keep them out of the vehicle and I think the answer is pretty clearly no. I don't think TN will allow you to shoot someone stealing your car if you aren't in it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you are correct, car jacking is a clean shoot. Stealing your car from the parking lot, not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and McDad
#236
#236
LouderVol said:
not unless it was a known problem in the area.

I have maintained my stance from the start. the no knock part was always crap, but the shooting was justified as soon as he shot first.

heck my opinion would also change if it wasn't the dude's defense lawyer using lawyer speak to admit to criminal acts by his client. and flat out admitting his client shot first, no lawyer speak there.
Click to expand...
Do you recall the illegal stuff this guy was doing (or accused of doing)? if so, can you repost?
 
#237
#237
McDad said:
I agree with you.

But don't "defend" him by saying he was murdered or the cops were there without cause.
Click to expand...
He was murdered in his own home by unidentified intruders in the middle of the night. It has not been established that what he was guilty of deserved the death penalty. The cops that shot him did so premeditatedly. Otherwise the warrant would have been served during daylight. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz and McDad
#239
#239
McDad said:
If he is selling guns to criminals. If he is selling illegally, then he is irresponsible.

You're making a constitutional case. Fine. I am all about it.

But I am talking about acting in accordance with the law on the books. If the law is bad, change the law. If you break the law, even bad law, there are consequences.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We don't actually know and the ATF didn't know either. They were looking.
 
#240
#240
82_VOL_83 said:
He was murdered in his own home by unidentified intruders in the middle of the night. It has not been established that what he was guilty of deserved the death penalty. The cops that shot him did so premeditatedly. Otherwise the warrant would have been served during daylight. Period.
Click to expand...
Yes. And, no.
 
#242
#242
82_VOL_83 said:
Exactly. We don't actually know and the ATF didn't know either. They were looking.
Click to expand...
I am going by the information shared here in the thread.

I don't have those details committed to memory.
 
#244
#244
hog88 said:
That doesn't mean the warrant was obtained with legitimate evidence/cause.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The warrant could be obtained illegitimately. But it is still a warrant which is the threshold to "force" entry into your home. Therefore, cause.
 
#245
#245
McDad said:
If he is selling guns to criminals. If he is selling illegally, then he is irresponsible.

You're making a constitutional case. Fine. I am all about it.

But I am talking about acting in accordance with the law on the books. If the law is bad, change the law. If you break the law, even bad law, there are consequences.
Click to expand...
Any federal law infringing post Constitutional signing is unconstitutional.

Is the ATF a federal agency?
 
#247
#247
McDad said:
Agreed. The warrant could be obtained illegitimately. But it is still a warrant which is the threshold to "force" entry into your home. Therefore, cause.
Click to expand...

I get your point but that is irrelevant to the way the warrant was handled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#249
#249
Jxn Vol said:
Any federal law infringing post Constitutional signing is unconstitutional.

Is the ATF a federal agency?
Click to expand...
The fight isn't in the home. The fight is at the Capitol (states and US).
 
#250
#250
McDad said:
The fight isn't in the home. The fight is at the Capitol (states and US).
Click to expand...

And this is why the upcoming SCOTUS ruling on the Chevron decision is one of the most important rulings in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top