Who says that they weren’t locked away? This was a 16 year old kid. Even if they were in a safe, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he knew the combination, especially if he helped maintain them.
 February 16, 2015 at 9:33am
I think he knew exactly what was going to happen when he pointed that gun at the cops.
Yep your right. Considering the way he carried out the shootings of his family. Using a pillow to muffle the sound, setting up ambushes. Suicide by cop, must have been his option rather than going to jail.
 February 16, 2015 at 9:31am
It’s not so much that it hadn’t happened before as it is that there wasn’t as much media to cover it when it did happen. Today you can’t take a pee in the woods of West Virginia without it making the news in Iowa.
February 16, 2015 at 9:15am
That was probably taken before his HS JROTC unit’s military Ball. I know when I was in HS we wore our class A uniform with a with dress shirt and bowtie for formal occasions, such as that, because we didn’t have the army’s formal blue dress uniforms.
 January 18, 2015 at 8:36pm
He wouldn’t feel it. There’s too much lard padding.
 January 18, 2015 at 8:34pm
Are you kidding? He’d eat the home!
 January 18, 2015 at 8:31pm
I’d be more worried that he might fall on me.
 January 18, 2015 at 8:30pm
He could use a heavy duty speargun..
January 12, 2015 at 11:57am
Nice name and I concur with it. Let’s hope we’ve seen the last of the injury/illness bug this season. There have been too many lost manhours already. LET’S GO PENS!
 January 12, 2015 at 11:00am
Actually there were 2 others at the time, the talk show host and the actor. He took the last name Keaton as a tribute to Buster Keaton.
 December 27, 2014 at 3:32pm
prov1 is right, that is the way that they are supposed to operate but sadly not all stores follow the procedure. I’ve had to investigate reports of people who bought a product and it wasn’t in the box. It’s not just Walmart that this happens at either. It can happen at any retailer and happens most often during the holiday shopping season. It just goes back to the old adage, “Let the buyer beware.” If something doesn’t seem right chances are it isn’t.
December 27, 2014 at 3:15pm
There has been a wave of these types of crimes lately. People will buy an item, take it home, remove it from the box, put bag of rocks or other heavy item in the box, reseal it so it doesn’t look like it’s been opened, and then return it to get their money back saying they changed their mind or someone else got them the same gift. Like the man in the story said, check your purchases!
 December 27, 2014 at 3:05pm
She ate it.
December 27, 2014 at 2:33pm
I was doing a report for school and found that there is already an underground movement to get that OKed next. The following journal article discusses that movement:
It isn't obstruction of justice if he isn't being detained. The officer can ask to see the receipt but the shopper doesn't have to consent to any searches. If there is no probable cause (as in this case) the officer doesn't have any right to detain him (which the officer didn't do) and conduct a search based on probable cause (which he also didn't do).
 November 29, 2014 at 4:32pm
There’s just one problem with your position, loneagwolf, it’s wrong. I have a degree in Criminal Justice, am working on a continuing degree, and work as a criminal investigator. The instant he was accused of larceny (aka shoplifting) he would have to produce the receipt proving that everything in his cart was in fact purchased. Refusing to do so is grounds for arrest even if he didn’t steal anything. The charge would be obstruction of justice. Simply waving what may or may not be a receipt in the officer’s face does not meet the requirement of producing it.
 November 29, 2014 at 4:08pm
The police have the right to perform a warrantless search incident to an arrest. If the man was observed by store security/loss prevention to have pocketed an item and they then called the police, while holding the accused, the officer(s) responding would not need a warrant to search the suspect. This is established law in the United States and has passed Constitutional muster in SCOTUS rulings. In this case the accused could have and should have been arrested for refusing to cooperate with the officer. The 4th Amendment protects you from randomly being stopped and searched, which is not what happened here. Here the probable cause the officer needed was the suspect having been observed breaking the law and then being detained by store security/loss prevention.
 November 27, 2014 at 11:20am
Remember we won’t see the results of that election until January when the next congressional session begins. Until then the leftists are going to try to cause as much damage as they can.