Thursday, March 28, 2013

Washington Man Arrested for Shooting up the Neighborhood

shooting at neighbors' homes

Pierce County sheriff's deputies secure a scene on 54th Avenue Northeast in the Fife Heights neighborhood in Tacoma, Wash., where shots were fired Tuesday, March 26, 2013. Police said that the shooter is holed up in a house.
Pierce County sheriff's deputies secure a scene on 54th Avenue Northeast in the Fife Heights neighborhood in Tacoma, Wash., where shots were fired Tuesday, March 26, 2013. Police said that the shooter is holed up in a house. / AP Photo/The News Tribune, Peter Haley

Local news reports

A Pierce County sheriff's spokesman says a 67-year-old man has been arrested after an hours-long standoff with officers who responded to reports of shots being fired at homes in a northeast Tacoma, Wash., neighborhood.

Troyer said the man would be booked into jail on multiple counts.

Authorities are not sure yet what led to Tuesday's gunfire. Deputies found both a car and a house with bullet holes but are not sure how many rounds were fired. Callers who dialed 911 described a man walking through the neighborhood, shooting at homes. The man later retreated to his own home as SWAT officers arrived.
Lawful gun owner? Concealed carry permit holder? What do you think?

12 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Evidence???

      How many sexual partners has he engaged with in such a manner contrary to the expected standards of western society?

      It is no wonder that such macabre violence occurs on such a regular basis considering his poor carnivorous diet, the utter lack of proper enema, and the average number of partners that today's homosexuals have over a lifetime.

      Delete
  2. Gun control advocate who is trying to muster up support for more bans?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, but he was certainly influenced by the anti-gun liberals who poisoned his mind with a poor diet (the vigorous and untamed consumption of meat) and the utter lack of necessary enema fosters the sexual perversions which are the cause of such morbid violence. They starve us of our decency, in an attempt to take our liberty.

      Delete
  3. Of say its another veteran whom the government failed to address his mental needs

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe he's a lawful, and even law abiding gun owner who was framed by you. Maybe you stole his guns, shot up the neighborhood, wiped them down and put them back, all to create a new shooting to cite on your blog.

    I mean, we're making baseless accusations and trying to tie random violence into a narrative, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's not exactly baseless what I said. We read about law abiding gun owners doing shit like this every day.

      Delete
  5. We have something like 2 million people in prisons in the United States and countless more criminals that have yet to be convicted or are ex-convicts. Every single one of them was a law abiding citizen up until the point when they committed their first crime. What those criminals have done has no bearing whatsoever on what other citizens will do.

    It is utterly and totally wrong to restrict the rights, liberties, and freedoms of citizens with no criminal record based on what criminals have done or what tools they used for their crimes.

    Almost every criminal uses a car to commit their crime. Should we eliminate all cars because law abiding citizens with no criminal record could decide one day to use a car while committing a crime?

    If Latinos were responsible for most violent crimes, should we proactively imprison or restrict the rights of Latinos who have no criminal record? If it is wrong to restrict the rights of Latinos with no criminal record, why is it "right" to restrict the rights of citizens who have firearms and no criminal record?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That way of phrasing the car comparison really doesn't work. We already require people to be licensed to drive and to register and insure their cars.

      Delete
    2. And none of that prevents crimes in which a car is used. Mikeb, read again what Anonymous said. Every criminal was a law-abiding citizen before committing that first crime.

      This is the fundamental split between our two sides. You believe that citizens must show themselves to be worthy and in need of exercising their rights. We believe that government, as a whole and one by one with each of its agents, must work its arse off to show that a person is not worthy of exercising rights.

      Delete
    3. The phrasing works. You don't require a background check to buy a car, and you don't take away their right to buy or own one because of an accident, or because the police don't trust them. They lose their license after due process if they commit a crime such as DUI or have a history of infractions and accidents.

      Also, that is how we treat what the law calls a mere privilege, not a RIGHT. How much more protection does a Right get?

      Delete
  6. 15 times and he still drives.... yeah no thanks....

    http://www.whas11.com/news/I-Team-catches-man-with-15-DUI-arrests-behind-the-wheel-138585829.html

    ReplyDelete