LaRue Brachter

[mr ed]

Perhaps you should modify that statement to "some of you guys" ...

The majority do NOT seem to be defending the shooter.

done

 

[Glocktogo]

I don't think there's a defense for the shooting generally in this case, but to your point, if there's video of it, there's a good chance he saw it on his phone. I launch my cameras on my phone pretty quick if I hear unexpected sounds in the night at least, although that's just me.


Not a place I want to go either, but I'm not going to think that shooting someone that made that decision is the right way to go in any universe either. I argued that point severely with some people until the mods started stepping in. (They didn't see fit to remove the post that insinuated I was good with murdering children but that's a different matter altogether). I was born with nothing, spent most of my life with little to nothing, and I'll die with nothing I can take with me. I like my crap in the middle, but it's all just crap in the middle. There's two times I've been drawn --- one of them was in fact someone trying to beat my door down (not jiggle it, but actually beat it down) --- and I didn't shoot through the door then.

My point is that for a website full of folks that supposedly claim the moral high ground a lot, there's a lot of people that are totally cool with shooting people over BS stuff and then giving reasons like "I'm too old to deal with it any other way" or "It's mine and I can defend it as I please" or whatever. This thread to me has a real parallel to the flag one because it's different views but still essentially shooting people over property and I won't be surprised to see folks that DO think the guy was 100% justified. Personally, I think there are some points in the original article that give reason to think he does have some support for his choice, but I don't think, on an initial reading with limited evidence, that it looks all that great for him being in a legally, or morally, justifiable position.

I think there are very limited circumstances where defense of property is due to said property being required for sustaining life. If I lived in the arctic and someone was trying to steal say, a generator? I'd be inclined to defend said property with lethal force if necessary. If I was in the middle of the desert with no comms and someone tried to steal my transportation? Same thing.

I'm not using lethal force to defend a flag, pot, liquor, etc., because it's not moral, ethical or legal. I will defend my life if I tell said thief that they may not take my property, and they then menace my life with potentially lethal force. I do have one other thing that I'll defend with lethal force if necessary, but I won't discuss it here. It's a dark place and only if someone ever goes there will they find out how serious their mistake is.

I try to not look down my nose at anyone, especially if I don't know their motivations for doing or saying a thing. That doesn't mean I don't have thoughts on the matter, I just figure said thoughts don't really add any value to the discussion, so I keep them to myself.

 

[Blue Heeler]

Yes ... more information is needed.

Law states that if you are committing a felony, any self-defense/stand-your-ground law is off the table. That does not matter what color someone is or even identifies as.

The guy “jostled” the door handle of an illegal grow operation. He got dead for that.

This will get plead down.

 

[okcBob]

I’ve never been accused of being wise or noble, so can’t help you.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

I’ve read several of these threads and the first conclusion I have is the the media stirs up a LOT of controversy which could possibly affect the outcome of any charges and trial. What do they call that? Tried by public opinion?

We all know that the media slants things in the direction that will draw the most attention to their channel.

My question is about the video footage. They mentioned that there was video footage of the night before, but I didn’t see any mention of the night of the incident. Was there any?

 

[TedKennedy]

Dude was growing pot. Big freaking deal - that's the equivalent of your machine shop not updating a business license. It's still his property.

Dude should not have shot through the door, period. That was a no-no, both in the eyes of the law and in my own mind.

My guess is there is much more to this than the press is reporting.

 

[mr ed]

Dude was growing pot. Big freaking deal - that's the equivalent of your machine shop not updating a business license. It's still his property.

Dude should not have shot through the door, period. That was a no-no, both in the eyes of the law and in my own mind.

My guess is there is much more to this than the press is reporting.

No, it's the equivalent of a machine shop making illegal machineguns at 1 am
And some homeless guy jigglied the door knob and got shot.

 

[TedKennedy]

No, it's the equivalent of a machine shop making illegal machineguns at 1 am
And some homeless guy jigglied the door knob and got shot.

If you say so.

What do you have against the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Snattlerake]

You ever go jiggle a door at 1 am for the second night in a row?

On May 27, 2020, around 1 a.m., Bratcher was at the grow operation warehouse when Daniel Hardwick, a 42-year-old white man, allegedly attempted to break into the business for the second consecutive night. Video from that night reportedly shows Hardwick park his car at the rear of the shop, walk to the business’s door and jostle with the door handle, attempting to gain entry.​

For years. I was also checking for locked doors. I about shot the Maytag man one night. Full sized motorized cardboard M-effer jumped out at me one night as I was passing the window to an appliance store.

 

[mr ed]

If you say so.

What do you have against the 2nd Amendment?

Nothing.
The whole case is about an illegal drug producer killing spmeone