Pilot Facing Felony Charges After Allegedly Waiving Gun

[Lebowski]

Somehow you see what neither the police, nor the whitnesses saw. You're psychic, or simply feel comfortable reading into the report what isn't there? Which is it?

Avbug, you're missing my point, but that's okay. I forgive you because of your cute little screen name.

I'm not reading anything into the report. And I never claimed to know whether Inman brandished anything. Go back into my posts and find where I said that. I didn't. I think it's quite possible that he acted irresponsibly, but I didn't say that, either. You're also right that the police didn't accuse him of anything--but the couple sure did.

And if someone accuses someone else of a crime, EVIDENCE is typically collected, no? If that crime involves a gun, then a gun would be considered evidence. Evidence doesn't equal guilt, although you seem to think that I implied that. I didn't.

That doesn't mean I'm saying the couple is right, either. However, the fact that he had two loaded guns in his car is absolutely relevant to the accusation that he waived firearm at them from his vechicle. There's no way around that, little Avbug.

Have a good evening.

 

[avbug]

And I never claimed to know whether Inman brandished anything.

You claimed the fact that a weapon was found on his person was evidence of his guilt, and it is not.

However, the fact that he had two loaded guns in his car is absolutely relevant to the accusation that he waived firearm at them from his vechicle.

The firearms are circumstantial, anecdotal, and not relevant to the accusation. They are coincidental. The man is innocent. Until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he is innocent. Moreover, whereas he has not yet been tried, let alone arraigned, then he is innocent without exception. An arraignment has been scheduled to determine if evidence exists that will support a trial and to permit the accused to enter a plea. Presently the charges mean nothing; they are charges. Period.

Conversely, lack of firearms in the vehicle would not prove he did not brandish a firearm, either, as he could easily have disposed of the weapons or hidden them. The weapons are coincidental, as the boyfriend never stated he saw the weapon and only stated that his girlfriend saw something she thought looked like a weapon...and that's as far as the girl herself would go. Hardly a ringing condemnation. That weapons were in the vehicle is really beside the point...they weren't sure what they saw at all, insofar as the reports provided give. She might have thought she saw Inman strangling what looked like giraffe...the finding of a giraffe in the vehicle would prove nothing, unless one could find evidence of strangulation on the giraffe.

Have a good evening.

It's not evening, brightspark.

 

[a320drivr]

Okay *************************nuts. I know the guy. When this is all said and done the media version will be much different than what really happened.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Okay *************************nuts. I know the guy. When this is all said and done the media version will be much different than what really happened.

Isn't it always? The media can't find the facts with both hands and radar:uzi: And I'm ashamed to say my first career was as a television news distort......, em, reporter.

 

[Max Powers]

Guilty.......Hang em high....I says

 

[PsubS]

Ohhhh, Lebowski got a "brightspark" comment from Avbug---the ultimate compliment.

 

[Hawker800]

The complainants should have been armed themselves. Then they could have made sure the gun waiving maniac stayed at the scene of his crime. Sold my weapons of mass destruction several years ago. Damn!

 

[Lebowski]

You claimed the fact that a weapon was found on his person was evidence of his guilt, and it is not.

You continue to misquote me and read into my posts, Mr. Avbug. I said the gun being found in the car was evidence, not evidence of his guilt. Those two statements aren't equivalent. You seem to think they are, which probably explains why you are misquoting me. If collecting evidence means prejudging a person's guilt, then we in this country have never given anyone a fair trial. I don't think collecting evidence means that someone is guilty. You apparently don't see the distinction there.

What I did say about the gun being evidence was this: "It doesn't mean he's guilty or innocent." That's clearly in direct conflict with your assertion that I said it was evidence of his guilt. You won't find that statement in any of my posts.

Like you, I don't believe Mr. Inman should be prejudged just because he had a gun in his car. Unlike you, I do think it is relevant that he had a gun in his car after someone accused him of pointing it at them. No doubt you would think it relevant if police DID NOT find a gun in his car. I believe that would have put an end to the couple's assertion.

By the way, your giraffe example was completely irrelevant, as giraffes are not native to Oklahoma. Thanks for playing, and have a good morning. :laugh:

 

[avbug]

You continue to misquote me and read into my posts, Mr. Avbug.

I didn't misquote you. I didn't quote you at all. I didn't even paraphrase you. I summarized you. You understand the difference, do you?

By the way, your giraffe example was completely irrelevant, as giraffes are not native to Oklahoma.

A lot you know. Giraffes, and rhino's, too. Most of them are disguised as armadillos.

 

[Whine Lover]

So, according to the article ( and many of you ) he "waived" the gun?

a: to relinquish voluntarily (as a legal right) <waive a jury trial>

synonyms see relinquish

He gave it up? What's the problem then?

OH...you mean he "Waved" the gun.

Right, that is a bit of a sticky wicket then.

YKW