User Profile: Gremlin1974


Member Since: July 17, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • August 22, 2014 at 12:23pm

    It’s Huston, is anyone really surprised?

  • August 22, 2014 at 4:14am

    One good reason not to live in Canada.

  • August 22, 2014 at 4:13am

    I would probably just laugh and wave at it then go back to what I was doing. Now if it is inside my house, which would 99.9% of the time be from a freak mistake, well I would just reach out and grab the darned thing and see if it had the owners info on it and call them.

    Now if it is peeping in a window that would be a different thing, but I bet my long handled fishing net would work in that situation. Then i would see if it had owner information and turn that info and equipment over to the cops.

    The only reason I could see for actually damaging the thing on purpose is if some dummy was trying to like fly the thing into me, but I would probably think that was a mistake as well.

  • [1] August 22, 2014 at 3:32am

    Well CNN’s “source” doesn’t really know what they are talking about, since a simple X-ray wouldn’t show a “blowout fracture”, it takes a CT scan or MRI, I believe.

    Also the official statement by the assistant chief didn’t say that he had a fracture, only that he had swelling and was taken to the hospital.

    Sighting “sources” that are unnamed is the same way the The Enquirer gets away with printing the fiction that they do.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] August 22, 2014 at 3:26am

    I’d sue them for wrongful termination and violation of my free speech rights…as long as the person wasn’t stupid enough to make the comment from their work computer.

  • [6] August 11, 2014 at 4:24pm

    Just look at her eye’s there is a whole lotta crazy going on there.

  • [9] August 11, 2014 at 4:19pm

    what happens if your main shooting had with the neat little watch thing on it, is disabled and you need to use your off hand?

  • August 8, 2014 at 11:37pm

    Seriously, look at those two sub-human pieces of filth, especially their eyes. There is a whole lot of crazy going on there. Want to see the same look in someone’s eyes? Take a look a Chucky Manson or Nancy Pelosi’s eyes you will see the same thing.

  • [1] August 7, 2014 at 5:40pm

    In MI 2nd Degree Murder/Voluntary Manslaughter are the same thing. They then have a lesser charge of Involuntary Manslaughter, which is basically someone causing a death due to gross negligence, at least that is how I understand it.

  • [-1] August 7, 2014 at 5:37pm

    “it became more a a vigilante thing.”

    Then you obviously have no idea about the actual facts of the case.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 7, 2014 at 5:35pm

    One thing that this article leaves out is that there is a significant amount of time between the car crash and her being on Wafers front porch, something like 3 and a half hours.

    Also, she was not only drunk she was 11 times the legal limit for someone under the legal drinking age, and 3.5 times the the legal limit for someone of legal drinking age. She also had active and inactive THC (pot) in her blood stream. So this was not just some poor innocent helpless girl who was just seeking help from a “recent” car crash. People at the crash site, which wasn’t really close to Wafer’s house, tried to help her, but she left instead.

    Not saying that any of that means she should be shot and killed, but those are the facts of the case.

  • [1] August 7, 2014 at 5:29pm

    I followed this trial very closely. Wafer practiced poor gun safety and handling. He told police he “didn’t know there was a round in the chamber”, “it was an accident”, I believe even on time saying; “I didn’t mean to shoot”. It is most likely was just an accident. However, accidents are by their very nature unintentional and self defense must be an intentional act.

    By claiming self defense you are basically saying;

    “Yes, I admit that I shot and/or killed this person, however I did so in lawful use of deadly force for self defense because I was in fear of death or great bodily harm.”

    So if you do something to ruin your own self defense or the prosecution can disprove one of the aspect of self defense, then you lose the second part of that sentence, so you are just left with;

    “Yes, I admit I shot and/or killed this person.”

    Wafer, in my opinion through his own negligent actions lost the second part of that sentence.

  • August 7, 2014 at 5:20pm

    There is exactly ZERO evidence that he “wanted to shoot his gun”. There is considerable evidence that he did so completely by accident and that lead to the death of another person, which in MI is Second Degree Murder. He obviously wasn’t wanting to shoot anyone, he just practiced poor gun safety, imho.

  • [3] August 7, 2014 at 5:18pm

    7 men, 5 women, 8 white, and 4 black.

  • [8] August 7, 2014 at 5:16pm

    Actually, without going into great legal detail, yes you can use lethal force to defend yourself if you are in “fear of death or great bodily harm”, so basically if you are scared. The law does not require that you actually be subjected to death or great bodily harm before you defend yourself, because that would just be well…stupid.

    Responses (1) +
  • [619] August 7, 2014 at 5:10pm

    The situation hasn’t been resolved, not a single person has been charged with the kidnapping of this child. Not a single doctor or nurse has lost their licenses to practice. I pray that the family file the largest lawsuit that has ever been brought.

    Responses (15) +
  • [8] August 6, 2014 at 11:08pm

    The point is she shouldn’t have to ask anyone to help defend her. She is a law abiding citizen who has been abused by criminal scum for the past 5 years of her life. This must be a pretty bad case for a restraining order to be in place for this long. She should be allowed to carry a gun if she wants and its none of the Universities damn business.

  • [1] August 6, 2014 at 1:05pm

    Just more of the habitually offended being….well habitually offended.

  • [7] August 6, 2014 at 12:59pm

    “Odd the Officer was on an emergency call that required her to drive at 90 mph with no lights on”

    Which in most states is illegal, by the way. The reason given for not turning on the lights is the exact opposite of the reason our tax dollars go to put the overpriced things on the vehicle in the first place.

  • July 31, 2014 at 3:36pm

    Yea, now lets legalize drugs so they can get those easier, geez.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go