A Randolph man shot his neighbor in the stomach after the two quarreled about dumping leaves, police said.
Christopher Leonard pleaded not guilty yesterday to armed assault with intent to murder. The 38-year-old was released on $25,000 cash bail following his arraignment in Quincy District Court, according to a spokesman for Norfolk District Attorney William R. Keating.
Doesn't that sound inconsistent to you, charged with attempted murder and out on $25,000 bail?
To me the inconsistent thing is the charge in the first place. It should have been armed assault, period, or armed assault due to getting angry.
Leonard and his neighbor, John Rota, were bickering about a property dispute at about 10 p.m. Friday, police said. Leonard allegedly told Rota he would like to dump leaves on Rota’s lawn, according to police.
One of the neighbors tossed a beer can in the middle of the fight, and Leonard shot Rota with a 9mm handgun, police Lieutenant Richard Crowley said. Crowley said he did not know whether the men had been drinking.
Leonard called police to report the shooting, Crowley said. Rota was transported to Boston Medical Center and has been released, police said.
Police found “quite a few guns,’’ including a 9mm, in Leonard’s home, Crowley said. Leonard has a license to carry firearms, Crowley said.
Aha! There we have it, another concealed carry guy who shouldn't have had a gun in the first place. Or, does someone what to dispute that? Should a guy who can get so angry over an argument about the leaves, that he pulls a gun and shoots his neighbor be permitted to own guns? I'm not talking about how we might enforce such a thing, I'm just asking should a guy like that be armed?
I say NO. I say the more people there are with guns the more people like this there are with guns. And that's bad news for everybody. That's why sensible people don't want guns in national parks and schools and any other place for that matter. We don't trust the gun owners. We can't distinguish between the vast majority of responsible gun owners and characters like this who can lose it over the leaves.
The Gun Guys agree with me, of course.
What's your opinion? Is this just another anomaly, another anecdotal rarity which has nothing to do with gun ownership? Or is this an increasingly prevalent part of American society?
Please leave a comment.
So do you admit that you agree with restricting people's rights based on what they might do?
ReplyDeleteAnd you wonder why we accuse you of wanting to ban guns. Since there is no way to tell "who can get so angry over an argument about the leaves, that he pulls a gun and shoots his neighbor" before hand, the only way to attempt to keep guns from those people is to ban all guns.
As to the charge of armed assault with intent to murder, I believe it is probably a function of gun laws in the state which make it a worse crime if it is committed with a gun. After all, guns are so much more lethal than anything else out there. Don't you agree with that?
So do you admit that you agree with restricting people's rights based on what they might do?
ReplyDeleteYup, guilty until proven innocent is MikeB's motto.
Massachusetts gun laws are odd-A license is required for mere ownership. Ownership of certain types of guns require what is called a license to carry, even though it does not give the right to carry. A license to carry concealed is relatively rare. It is probable that the shooter did not have a license that gave him the right to carry concealed, although that is of limited relevance since this happened on his own property.
ReplyDeleteThe neighbor admits he struck the first blow, with a story about how the shooter egged him on. The neighbor also claims that the shooter was known to carry and show a gun all the time. Seems kind of strange to me--"Yeah, I knew he carried a gun around and flashed it at people, so when we got in an argument I thought it was a good idea to punch him"
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8703
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing it was an LTC A Unrestricted permit. AKA A Mass Carry Permit.
That being said Again MikeB is expressing his animus for human rights and due process of justice.
Those who have committed crimes (as both men in this story appear to have done) should be punished for those crimes. Those who misuse guns should have them taken away (this WILL happen in this case, more than likely even if all charges are dropped)
Those who have committed no crime and no abuse should pay no account for those who do.
Mike, weerd beeerd has been harassing me non-stop. He has ruined several of my threads. He is trolling me very badly. If you are friends, could you please ask him to go away?
ReplyDeleteI have deleted over a dozen of his comments already.
Why is he doing this?
Gives guns a bad name. He has definitely changed my mind. On your side 100% now. These guys are scary. Asking them nicely does no good.
Nope, asking us nicely after you've been rude and disingenuous doesn't go very far.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't do well in kindergarten did you?
Is this just another anomaly, another anecdotal rarity which has nothing to do with gun ownership?
ReplyDeleteGive the man a See-gar!
Or is this an increasingly prevalent part of American society?
I know, even before I ask it, that this is a silly question, but do you have any statistical evidence to support an assertion of "increasing prevalence" of such behavior?
but do you have any statistical evidence to support an assertion of "increasing prevalence" of such behavior?
ReplyDeleteMikeB is what Rand would call a "subjectivist" There's no objective reasoning to his thoughts and conclusion. His thoughts and conclusions arise not from a rational, fact-based process but from his feelings
Awww,
ReplyDeleteDaisy's all sad that not everyone agrees with her and says so.
It's amazing how rude she can be to people then turn around and demand people address her exactly as she wants or only comments in approved fashion.
Guess Daisy gets a Sad Panda Award
Wait wait, I thought YOU were the whiner, Bob!
ReplyDeleteBTW she declared me as "Banned" but realized she doesn't have any means to do that, so I'm not doing anything different, except replacing my deleted posts...oh and being called a rapist!
Daisy, Pazienza, as they say here in Italy.
ReplyDeleteWeer'd and Bob S. were the guys who motivated me to first use Comment Moderation. We've had terrible times, but now look, my comments are open and we're all getting along swimmingly.
Actually, I consider both of them friends, but I don't think I can presume to ask them anything based upon that. They're tough guys. But I have to say, they generally provide substantive thought provoking ideas.
Weer'd - Speaking of "banned" Delaware Liberal banned me again.
ReplyDeleteIt's what the leftist do. They can't defend their arguments, so they ban the opposition.
ReplyDeleteWell, I really didn't WANT to, but I politely asked and asked for him to go away and he simply refused... so, finally had to go all Big Brother on his ass.
ReplyDeleteThanks anyway!
Weerd Beerd: BTW she declared me as "Banned" but realized she doesn't have any means to do that,
ReplyDelete(chuckles)
Wrong again, as usual.
All I had to do was ask you for your business extension and you ran away like the proverbial scalded hound dog. ;)
BTW, I'm still ready to talk on the phone any time you are. Just say the word, I'll even pay the long distance charges...
(chuckles)
Ah Daisy, can't handle a little dissenting opinion on your blog so you've got to ban people.
ReplyDeleteThat is the true sign of an intellectual coward, unable and unwilling to defend her position.
Who banned anyone? I did not.
ReplyDeleteAll I did was tell him I know where he works. :)
So do you admit that you agree with restricting people's rights based on what they might do?
ReplyDeleteYup, MikeB has repeatedly claimed he doesn't believe in presumption of innocence or due process of law.
Please Mike, stop putting words in my mouth.
ReplyDelete"Yup, MikeB has repeatedly claimed he doesn't believe in presumption of innocence or due process of law."
I've never said any such thing. I question things, yes. But you mischaracterize me.