Two Oregon boys, ages 7 and 11, are accused of trying to rob a woman with a loaded gun, police said Sunday. The boys tried to carjack a 22-year-old woman who was in her family's truck waiting for her parents in a church parking lot, Portland police said in a statement.This is exactly the gun culture that Costas and Whitlock were talking about. The feckless investigators seem to be baffled as to how an 11-year-old could get a gun. A lengthy and complicated investigation is in order.
Ami Garrett, of southeast Portland, told officers that when the boys approached her, the younger boy told the older boy to “show her your piece.”
The woman said that when she refused to give them her vehicle, they demanded cash and her phone. She said that as she drove away, she saw the 11-year-old boy pull a gun from his pocket.
The boys were apprehended in the parking lot by officers responding to reports of children with guns. Police said they recovered a loaded .22 caliber handgun from the older boy's pockets.
Detectives were investigating how the boys obtained a gun.
Of course, if we had licensing of gun owners and registration of guns it would take less than a minute to determine the gun belongs to daddy. As it is, it would take all of ten minutes to determine that. Let's see how the "investigation" pans out.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The boys were arrested, and detectives are investigating. Why won't you let them do their jobs?
ReplyDeleteBecause the dad should be arrested, the one whose gun they used and the same guy who taught them all about it.
DeleteYou don't even know if there's a father in the picture. You don't know who owned the gun. That's what an investigation is for. In what you propose, I see a call for a mob to lynch someone. It doesn't really matter who, so long as the people doing it are all against guns.
Deletemikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteThere is just so much wrong witht that story. First off, howscum that gal didn't have her equalizer with her? She coulda just sat there all girlydefenseless like and got a little weepy maybe when that adolesc-o-perp and his kidbrother-o-perp told here they wanted her vehicle and said, "Oh, please don't hurt me, I'll do whatever you say". All the while she's got her Ruger GP-100 357 Mag 4in, SS w/Hogue Monogrip, loaded with Herter's 158g JHP Select grade .357 (never leave home without a few extra speedloaders) resting on her smooth, well muscled--but not in a dykish sortaway--thigh, safety off, hammer cocked, trigger finger resting on frame, right over the trigger. So, the little bastard comes over and 'fronts her, tries to steal her shit, includin' the money in her POCKET and then he reaches into HIS pocket AND she blows that little fuckwad half way across the parkin' lot with a beautiful 2 inch, six shot group right through that little bastards heart. Without taking her eyes off the second target she could pop out her spent brass, reload in about three seconds and drop her second target quicker than you could say, "hey, he's just a kid!".
What I can't understand is why one of her parents wasn't providing cover with his AR from the doorway of the church--hey, it ain't a "sanctuary" till they reach the nave!
"The boys were arrested, and detectives are investigating. Why won't you let them do their jobs?"
Do you ever read anything you type before you hit, "publish" and demonstrate your indignorance?
I'm virtually certain that mikeb302000's influnce on a police investigation that's occurring just shy of 5,000 miles away. But, being that you're one of the idiotz who swallows the codswallop that Weenie LaPutrid spews about havin' yore GUNZ confiscated you're prolly dumb enough to think that's a possibility.
Democommie spews again. Did I say that Mikeb can influence the police? What I said was that the cops are doing their jobs. Why does he need to call them feckless?
Delete"The boys were arrested, and detectives are investigating. Why won't you let them do their jobs"
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sorry, Greggie; the above comment doesn't imply that mikeb302000 is somehow obstructing or impeding their work. "Won't you LET them do their jobs" sure looks like a plea for him to leave them alone. Here's the thing, pal, I doubt that the cops in Oregon, of whichever department is handling the investigation even know that mikeb302000 exists. But your "plea" for him to just let them do their damned jobs! why, that sounds positvely pearlclutchingly anguished. You are such a tool.
A tool for what, Democommie? I said that the investigation is in progress. The implication of my comment is that Mikeb's bloviating about it serves no purpose other than to sing to the control freak choir, and your response only supports what I've said.
DeleteLicensing and registration? What evidence do you have that such a program would be effective? Canada has a registration program, they are shutting it down as ineffective. California has a mandatory background check on all transactions, including private.. and a 70 percent NON compliance rate because it would be exorbitantly expensive to track everything. What other rights would you like to license and register? Do I need a license to speak or follow my faith?
ReplyDelete"The implication of my comment is that Mikeb's bloviating about it serves no purpose other than to sing to the control freak choir, and your response only supports what I've said."
ReplyDeleteAnd your original comment imploring that he only let them do their job was what then, a completely fucking gratuitous swipe at mikeb302000. You really are a fucking dolt.
"Licensing and registration? What evidence do you have that such a program would be effective? Canada has a registration program, they are shutting it down as ineffective."
How has it been ineffective? If it is "ineffective" what would "effective" look like? How much did it cost? When you make assertions like the one above, you better be prepared to offer some sort of data/evidence to back up the claim.
"California has a mandatory background check on all transactions, including private.. and a 70 percent NON compliance rate because it would be exorbitantly expensive to track everything"
Another assertion with no data to back it up.
"What other rights would you like to license and register? Do I need a license to speak or follow my faith?"
Let me know when praying will kill somebody who isn't of your faith and we'll look into it.
You conflate your "Right" with "No responsibility".
I can say anything that I want to about you or anyone else, under the first amendment, with no penalty attached. Well, there are laws (which are completely constitutional) against libel and slander. So, yeah, I guess we do limit that rather fundamental right in this country.
You do need a license to get married, even though you're perfectly free to do so. I guess we limit that fundamental right in some ways (especially if you're teh GAY*).
You need to register in order to vote. So I guess we limit that fundamental right in this country.
* I'm pretty sure that since Loving v Virginia in 1967, teh GAY marriage has become the new "miscegnation" for the fundies to hate on.