Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (842107)	3/12/2015 1:01:43 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578069

Sure he meant CO2. What is the primary cause? I told you that already. You were drunk and don't remember.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (842107)	3/12/2015 2:37:29 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1578069

ANTI GUNNER ATTACKS, HOSPITALIZES PRO-GUN CAMERAMAN 03/11/2015 ANTI GUNNER ATTACKS, HOSPITALIZES PRO-GUN CAMERAMAN William Saunderson, famous for his “Laughing At Liberals” videos on YouTube was brutally attacked and seriously injured during a meeting with the attacker, Skye Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald, also a videographer, is known for making various video documentaries. He was supposedly working on a “neutral” documentary about the ongoing gun debate and had called on several pro-gun activists including Saunderson to provide input for his latest film. The two were meeting at a local Gresham restaurant to discuss a preview of the film being pitched by Fitzgerald and seen by Saunderson. Saunderson was upset that the film which had been touted for his input as neutral, was in fact, anti-gun biased. The film trailer and appeal for funding was placed on Indiegogo but has since been removed. The film content however is accurately described in the link here – OREGON DIVIDE Details of the entire meeting and attack are included below by the eyewitness, Chris Cochran so we will not repeat them here. We will comment however; this brutal attack is just a sample of what we in the pro-gun movement has said all along. Gun owners seem to show more responsibility and restraint, while the anti-gun movement has repeatedly shown a violent streak. The victim of this latest attack, Mr. Saunderson, is currently undergoing surgery on his left arm which was seriously (and potentially permanently) injured. His upper arm is broken in 3 places with the ball broken completely off and shoulder dislocated. The doctor says he will be lucky if he recovers 80% use. Police have a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for Fitzgerald and his vehicle description is included in the wanted poster attached. It is interesting to note that shortly after the attack, Fitzgerald “tweeted” 3 individuals. Two Oregon State Representatives (Ginny Burdick and Earl Blumenauer), both anti-gun advocates and Jake Weigler, an Oregon political planner. It is not yet known if they have any connection to the attack. We wish for a speedy recovery for our friend, Mr. Saunderson and that justice is swift and sure in apprehending Skye Fitzgerald who is still at large. For details on the case, call the Gresham Police department. Below is the first hand account of what happened as per the eye witness, Chris Cochran. Here is what happened.... Skye Fitzgerald approached Jennie, Michelle, and I in early 2013 and asked if we would be part of a documentary he was making. He had good credentials (history channel, discovery, etc), so we let him pitch it. He said it was a documentary on the "gun debate" in Oregon. He was coming from a neutral and un-bias perspective. So we all agreed. Fast forward to a couple years later to about a week ago. We discovered his trailer for the film, titled "Oregon Divide," along with his pitch for money on indigogo. It was so bias, one sided, and anti gun, thing I have seen in a while. So, William and I decided to confront him about it. I texted him and asked if he would meet up at sharis to talk, and he agreed. So, I arrive at sharis first and am waiting for them both to show up. Skye shows up next, and William shortly after. Skye sat on the bench opposite from william and I. We started to have a normal and calm conversation. Nothing bizarre. Then we start to bring up our concerns about the bias of the film. He gets very edgy and defensive. Skye asks, "are you bias, Chris?" I answer, "of course I am." He then asks William, "are you bias?" William answers, "yes, but Im not the one telling people that I am creating a neutral documentary." All this time, William has his camera sitting on the table right in front of him. Recording...which is completely legal. Skye asks, "are you recording?" William says "yes." Skye responds, "You need to turn that off and stop recording me." William replies, "no, Im not going to do that." Skye reaches over the table to grab the camera from William. William grabs the camera back away from him. Skye lunges over the table and grabs both of Williams’s cameras. They get in a small brawl inside the sharis. The manager tells them that they need to leave. So, Skye walks out and William follows him while on the phone with 911, telling them what happened, and that Skye stole his equipment. William follows Skye to the parking lot, where Skye tackles William to the ground, which is what ended up breaking his arm and shoulder. Skye takes Williams cameras and throws them into the front seat of the car and gets in. William stands behind the car to try to stop him from leaving, then Skye starts his car and backs up, almost running over William. Skye then sped away down the street, and has not been seen since. The police came and took statements from myself, sharis staff, and William. They followed him to the hospital where they could talk more. Skye is trying to claim that William reached for his gun.... Bull shit. Skye is trying to claim that William attacked him....Bull shit. Skye is clearly dangerous, and not sound minded. As far as bias goes....who are the first people he tweets after this? http://www.thecommontruth.net/2/post/2015/03/-anti-gunner-attacks-hospitalizes-pro-gun-cameraman.html

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (842107)	3/12/2015 3:00:19 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1578069

Texas Home Invasion Leaves Suspect Dead, Homeowner Injured…And A Community Defending The Criminals? Posted by Bob Owens on March 10, 2015 at 7:53 am Three criminals attempted to break into the home of Doug Hurst, 45, near Teague, Texas. Hurst heard the three home invaders kicking in his back door around 1:30 AM, and armed himself. At least one of the criminals were armed and fired at Hurst. Hurst was struck, but returned fire after being shot, striking one of the Democratic home invaders. When deputies arrived, they found Hurst seriously injured with a gunshot wound to the lower abdomen. He is is now in critical condition at a local hospital in a medically-induced coma. One of his attackers, Joshua Mulkey, 19, was found dead of a gunshot wound in the backyard of the home. The other home invaders, Lawson Abram and O’Jarion McClenon, were taken into custody within hours and charged with armed robbery. Both Abram and McClenon could be charged with Mulkey’s death under the “law of parties,” which is Texas’ interpretation of the felony murder rule. Another count of murder could be added if Mr. Hurst does not survive his injuries. As shocking as a violent crime like this is in a rural area where violent crime is said to be rare, the most stunning part of the story may be how the friends and family members of deceased robber/attempted murderer Mulkey are defending him in the comments of the ABC News article reporting the incident. Many friend and supporters of the dead robber seem intent on whitewashing the armed home invasion and attempted murder of the homeowner as just a “bad decision” or a “bad choice,” as if felony crimes are youthful indiscretions on par with sneaking out of the house or getting tipsy on beer taken out of the family fridge. Others are angry at those who say that the young criminal deserved his bullet, claiming that he didn’t deserve to die, and that people should be “respectful” of the dead criminal’s family in how they talk about him. Several have gone so far as to project a particular sort of fake Christian sentiment common in certain circles that the dead criminal shouldn’t be spoken poorly about for his actions, “because we are all sinners.” Perhaps not surprisingly, several have gone so far as to verbally threaten people who disagree with them. I’d note that this apparent acceptance of felony crime within the community that Joshua Mulkey was likely shared by him and his partners in crime. They clearly didn’t feel that felony home invasion, or attempting to murder the homeowner, was a serious moral wrong. At best they are paying lip service to the sentiment. It seems that much of the time—and probably a majority of the time—violent criminals are raised in an environment that is permissive and dismissive of criminal behavior by people coming from these communities. I can’t begin to imagine why that is, but as long as people continue to excuse felony crimes as mere “bad choices,” we’ll be digging graves for both the good and the bad. bearingarms.com Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (842107)	3/12/2015 3:06:08 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578069

Little Rock Man Shoots Burglar Who Targeted Elderly Neighbor Posted by Bob Owens on March 9, 2015 at 8:01 am Charles Dorsey considers his elderly neighbor to be “family,” and so when he saw a pair of Democratic men breaking into her home, he grabbed his gun and went to her aid as his sister called 911. He encountered the two burglars and held them at gunpoint. One of the men acted aggressively. That was a mistake. Police say a local man won’t be charged in a shooting that left a burglary suspect injured. It happened early Tuesday afternoon inside a home in the 6700 block of Wakefield Drive on the southwest side of town. According to the police report, Charles Dorsey, 62, pulled the trigger during the incident. He is the neighbor of a woman whose home was being burglarized. The suspects are identifed as Termaine Braxton, 32 and Anthony Roberts, 36. According to a police report, Dorsey saw the men run into the home and took action. Once inside, he ordered them to come out of a back bedroom and lie on the floor. While he held them at gunpoint on the living room floor, Dorsey’s sister called 911. Dorsey said Roberts was wounded after he fired a warning shot when the suspect tried to crawl towards him. Roberts was hit in the left forearm. He was taken to UAMS for treatment. Fortunately, the elderly neighbor wasn’t at home during the burglary, though when she returned home she was shocked to discover what occurred. Both men involved in the burglary face criminal charges. Dorsey was determined to have acted lawfully by police. While laws vary from state-to-state, it is worth pointing out that Dorsey’s decision to arm himself and then confront the burglars is typically only lawful because he felt his neighbor was home and in danger. If he knew she was away from home—off traveling, for example—then his decision to arm himself and confront the burglars might have been a crime. Why? As a general rule of thumb, armed self-defense of yourself or another human being is lawful if you have reason to believe that they face an imminent, proximate, lethal-force threat. Mr. Dorsey thought these two men were breaking into an occupied residence where an elderly woman was living, which constituted in his mind that imminent, proximate, lethal-force threat, according to the common “reasonable man” standard. Law enforcement and the local prosecutor obviously agreed up to this point. If he had grabbed his gun and attempted to stop the men for burglarizing the home if he knew she wasn’t home, he might be in trouble, as confronting someone with a weapon over property crime is illegal in most jurisdictions. Things got a little more interesting in this instance when one of the burglars (Roberts) started towards Dorsey, and Dorsey shot him in the arm with a “warning shot.” I have very little doubt in my mind that if Dorsey was faced with an anti-gun prosecutor that he would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon or a similar charge, with the explanation that Dorsey should have retreated and that “warning shots” are an admission that they didn’t face a threat that justified a lethal force response. Fortunately, Arkansas is a state not given to an irrational fear of weapons, nor a culture that gives criminals more rights than the citizens they prey upon. Nicely done, Mr. Dorsey, but next time, don’t fire warning shots. bearingarms.com