A case of self defense or not (long) - Sadly update in Post #36.

Ziggy2525 said:
Your empathy knows no bounds :rolleyes:. Jake Gardner had two TBI's in Iraq with a bit PTDS thrown in as frosting on the cake. He may have left some of his "under severe stress" coping skills like you have on a dirt road back there in back Iraq.

Pretty sure you've mentioned this before. Where was it you served again?
Click to expand...

Empathy is a strange thing like that, the more it effects you, the more you begin to resent people because you suffer from every foolish decision they make, torn between feelings of intense sorrow, pity, and rage towards their self-inflicted agony that you have no choice but to share in because it's just plain there.

Rustyt1953 said:
I spend a lot of time on Twitter and Instagram. I take personal offense to your callous broad brushing.
Click to expand...

If what I said doesn't apply to you, then you have no reason to take offense.
 
You have almost 2000 posts on a social media forum which you joined three years ago . . .

Forte Smitten Wesson said:
Social Media is a toxic hive of scum and villainy, hence why I stopped using it nearly a decade ago.

In my experience, folks who frequently use Social Media are miserable, intolerant, vindictive, easily offended charlatans who seemingly only use it to find more reasons to be offended and condemn others, all the while hypocritically preaching about love, equality, acceptance, and all manner of other virtues they evidently do not possess, nor will they ever be capable of aspiring to because they lack the capacity to master the single most crucial virtue of all, forgiveness. .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well, my takeaway here, besides condolences for Mr. Gardener and his family, is to stay the hell off of social media and open a line of home equity credit for potential legal costs.
 
johngross said:
Ummm...the Smith & Wesson Forum is social media.


Social Media | Definition of Social Media by Merriam-Webster

:forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos)
Click to expand...

Are we seriously going to start arguing/nitpicking over semantics now?

Obviously I'm referring to Social Networking Sites, (which are colloquially referred to as Social Media in casual speech) such as MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter.
 
I realize that there is more evidence to come but based on the newspaper article in Post 1 it would seem that the bar owner could have been charged with an out of date carry permit and nothing else. That would have depended on the Special DA's agenda and how he steered the grand jury. If he wanted to grand stand as so any do, he could have probably steered them to a more serious indictment.
It is amazing how many in the Media, all levels of politics, government and education have turned their back on reality. It will get worse until the people get enough and support, instead of degrade those that try to enforce the laws that have served us well for so many years.
This would have never happened had Scurlock had been home taking care of his child and being the good young man that his family describes.
Gardener's bar and owner did not move around town looking for trouble. Scurlock and his friends did.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to drag this out, but just when you think this whole sorted mess couldn’t get more bizzare, more bizzare stuff pops up.

The special prosecutor and the county attorney held dueling press conferences today.

At the end of the special prosecutor’s press conference a reporter asked the SC to summarize the evidence against Gardner. My short paraphase is the SC said a) because Gardner brought guns to the bar before the riot to protect the bar and b) because Gardner was a strong Trump supporter and Trump had tweeted the day before “when they start looting, we start shooting” - those two things showed there was probable cause that Gardner went to the bar with the intent to kill a rioter.

The county attorney that turfed the case to the grand jury in the first place held his own press conference and disagreed with SC. The CA said Scurlock wasn’t a protester. He was a criminal rioter that attacked Gardner as Gardner was walking away. Gardner had a right to defend himself. The CA poked the SC that the SC didn’t understand NE self defense law.

When I started this thread, my point was what seems like clear cut self defense may not be. This shows how wierd it can get and how tragic it can turn out for the self defender.
 
Last edited:
That may be true but unfortunately that’s when it needs to work the best.
 
So apparently depending on who you support can be used as evidence of premeditated murder now, huh?
I recall a certain someone suggesting that folks blind-fire shotguns into the air to scare off home invaders a few years back as well, yet somehow I doubt that Gardner would have been prosecuted based on that statement if he had been a supporter of said someone.

He should be slammed for saying something so outrageous, possibly even suspended, but he won't.

I would like to see someone make the case that the prosecutor was guilty of second-degree murder for causing Gardner to commit suicide, but obviously that will never happen because that's just too far-fetched, unlike incriminating people based largely upon who they support, which is totally fair and tangible evidence.
 
Last edited:
No one on this forum was there at the shooting, saw what actually hapened, or knew what was going on inside the brain of an ex-vet diagnosed with PTSD. All these are mere 'opinions' formed after gulping the kool-aid from the media of choice, and becoming an outraged echo chamber for it.

Mass media has one goal - attract and keep it's base so it can sell air time and make profits. And the base is kept by ginning up outrage and painting 'the other side' as evil villians responsible for all things bad.

Left thinks the right are all gun toting racist cavemen with no respect for anybody not them, right thinks the left are all molotov cocktail throwing pansexual looters with no respect for anybody not them.

None viewed as fellow citizens with different beliefs, just the enemy.

Walter Cronkite would look at the puke put out as news today and he would ...puke.
 
Last edited:
^^^^Yes! Viewership drives advertising rates, just as internet hits drive online ad rates. "If it bleeds, it leads" goes way back into the early newspaper days to titillate the general public.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LCC
LCC said:
No one on this forum was there at the shooting, saw what actually hapened, or knew what was going on inside the brain of an ex-vet diagnosed with PTSD. All these are mere 'opinions' formed after gulping the kool-aid from the media of choice, and becoming an outraged echo chamber for it.

Mass media has one goal - attract and keep it's base so it can sell air time and make profits. And the base is kept by ginning up outrage and painting 'the other side' as evil villians responsible for all things bad.

Left thinks the right are all gun toting racist cavemen with no respect for anybody not them, right thinks the left are all molotov cocktail throwing pansexual looters with no respect for anybody not them.

None viewed as fellow citizens with different beliefs, just the enemy.

Walter Cronkite would look at the puke put out as news today and he would ...puke.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point, but in peoples defense, the media at large is more anti-gun, so it is tangible to assume that the coverage of this story as it has unfolded is just another example of the status-quo anti-gun sensationalism hard at work, attempting to vilify an otherwise honorable man, a hero who bravely served his country at great personal peril, just because he defended himself and his property at home just as he did abroad.
Yes, there is also coverage which paints him in an extremely positive light, but I'm of the opinion that even in the midst of lies the truth is still present, because obviously all lies are based upon the truth.

I believe that the truth lies in between both extremes... That in reality, Gardner was a human being, flawed, capable of making mistakes, but ultimately doing what he believed was right at the time, yet was unable to live with the consequences.
Regardless, of where his heart may have been, what motivated his actions, I don't believe that he was a murderer of that his decision to defend his property was wrong.
Destruction of private property shouldn't be abided by, regardless of what self-interested men seeking approval by playing the part of altruistic pacifists may assert, or abuse their authority to protect perpetrators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCC
biku324 said:
What a sad, lonely, pitiful life a person must live to care so deeply about garbage posted on social media.
Click to expand...
It's far more than that. We don't know what people are going through. A social media post could just be the last straw and not necessarily the crux.

It's quite common for people to berate others on line. More often than not the one attacking doesn't have the first clue about what the person on the receiving end is dealing with. This is why I despise it when people attack new people for asking a question that has been asked before. It's uncalled for.

Forte Smitten Wesson said:
Social Media is a toxic hive of scum and villainy, hence why I stopped using it nearly a decade ago.
Click to expand...
And yet here you are using social media to attack those of us who are all using social media with you.



Forte Smitten Wesson said:
Are we seriously going to start arguing/nitpicking over semantics now?

Obviously I'm referring to Social Networking Sites, (which are colloquially referred to as Social Media in casual speech) such as MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter.
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing obvious about it. You used a broad term that includes any type of conversation held through electronic means. That includes this forum and any other forum on the internet. As we have this discussion, we are networking on social media. It's not semantics.

Also, when the article mentions social media, they are not just talking about Twitter or Facebook. They include any electronic means, just like this forum.
 
Point taken, I acknowledge my mistake and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended by usage of a broad term which applies to virtually any form of electronic communications. I had rashly presumed that my statements were clearly directed towards Social Networking Sites in context, but evidently I was wrong which resulted in drama which I had never intended, and it was a tactless statement to be making, regardless of intent. I assume full responsibility for my actions, and thus I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize over some rather insensitive comments I have made in previous posts as well. Alas, I am a passionate person who often allows emotion to get the better of me, which unfortunately often results in me saying things which may be insensitive, but I will always own up to my mistakes and strive to improve as a person, ergo I appreciate the constructive criticism I receive, although I may not always feel that way in the heat of the moment.

With that being said, in order to prevent further derailment of the thread, let us put this to rest and return to the subject at hand, shall we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN --WTS- GUN BOOKS -- MAKE AN OFFER
2 3
Replies
45
Views
9K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
Doug M.
Follow up to a prior string.
Replies
0
Views
417
Doug M.
Doug M.
M
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Facts About "Light Trigger Pull Liability"
Replies
0
Views
134K
Massad Ayoob
M
X
Florida Carry sues Deputy Andy Cox of Citrus PD
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
9K
oberon
O
D
THE SHOTGUN:True Story
Replies
4
Views
2K
Cyrano
Cyrano

Latest posts

Back
Top