Goodhue County Sheriff Dean Albers said Brian Childs, 30, 21000 Prairie Island Blvd., placed about 100 pounds of explosives into the rear of a truck Sunday on his property. A group of people on his property could be seen on a videotape.Sounds to me like nobody got hurt and everybody had a good time. But the new standard, as applied by our masters, is whether someone "seeking to do harm" might get their hands on it.
The explosives were detonated when the truck was shot by a .50 caliber rifle from about 300 yards away, Albers said. It is unclear who fired the rifle.
It was a relief to learn no one was injured during the incident, he said. But since the material can be purchased over the Web — and possibly fall into the hands of those seeking to do harm — is concerning, Albers said.
You know, really dangerous stuff, like utility knives, fuel oil and fertilizer, gasoline and matches...
[Via ChareltonHest]
10 comments:
Hoo-wee, Deputy Dawg! He done broke the legal law! - Muskie Muskrat
"It's legal to possess, legal to explode," Deputy Daw... [uh, cough, cough] Albers said Monday.
However, Albers said he and county prosecutors were reviewing possible charges — including felonies.
Officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Postal Service have been investigating the event.
Uh-huh. Yeah.
Don't let that li'l "law" thing get in the way of protecting them there sheep, Deputy Dawg. 'Specially if'n they're a bunch of dag nab cotton pickin' pesky varmints.
OK, there was a guy who wanted a new computer, put up a page, saying if he makes the money he'll blow up his old mac.
He did.
He did.
The video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eQQTFSbjM0
"I wonder if that will remain that way," he said of the legality of ordering explosives over the Internet. God forbid we live in a free country.
Ya know it wasn't all that long ago when you could dynamite your own stumps.
You still can!
You'll need two seerate licences at least, but that's no a problem if you've got a clean record.
Even then, it's really not that difficult to make your own, and you can legally get a licence for that too!
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1988335
Outrage Alert:
They are charging him with felonies.
Out of control authorities don't like a legal activity, so decide to charge him anyway.
Link: http://www.republican-eagle.com/articles/index.cfm?id=47100§ion=news&freebie_check&CFID=83366010&CFTOKEN=38195622&jsessionid=88302649d25672397080
C.H.
Alas, it seems he has prior felony convictions. So they are probably citing him with using a firearm.
Unconstitutional all the same.
However, one of the charges they have him cited with is "destruction of property with an explosive or incendiary device".
It's his property, on his property, with a legal explosive. They also charged him with "gross disregard for human life". That it is a charge that can be stretched.
Will keep an eye on this one. And my heated comments to others on other forums about their sheepleish behavior concerning their rights, as well as the authorities elitist attitude toward liberty, sill stands.
C.H.
Saw that CH--if the tape shows he was the shooter, there's that "prohibited person" thingie to deal with,and also if they took any guns from his house, he could well be screwed for the remainder of his enjoyable life.
That pieces fell a quarter mile away and off his property will not help his case either.
This is the kind of thing that in the old days, the sheriff would have come out and maybe chastised him and told him he had 24 hours to get all the pieces off his neighbors land or they were going to issue a citation. BATFU would have never heard about it.
"Alas, it seems he has prior felony convictions. So they are probably citing him with using a firearm."
Isn't that the point of "guncontrol"? There are statutes that are tied to priors, where there is no restitution so that those convictions are permanent marks. Basically, the disarmers would like everyone to be "on thin ice" indefinitely. That way if you get a bit too obnoxious with your constitutionalism, you get the rest of your punishment. (Although the disarmers do get too carried away when they try to punish before a crime is committed. That's okay, we'll all get caught with a malfunctioning semi-auto or a "high" capacity magazine sooner or later.)
Anyway, this guy is pretty much an asshole. 100 pounds of tannerite is quite a bit more of a disturbance than playing a stereo too loud or having a party with a live band (that plays all night), especially when it sends chunks of metal across a street. There are probably plenty of local ordinances which he violated, so he can spend his money on fines now, instead of tannerite. A fifty year sentence seems excessive to me, but you have to admit that his judgment is terrible to the point that he's dangerous to people other than himself.
TJH,
Nope, I do not have to admit, or agree, that he is an imminent danger to others. Nor do I agree that a single 100# charge of tannerite is more bothersome than an all night party with base speakers shaking the walls of my house.
Did the guy actually hurt anyone? Did he actually damage or destroy property that was not his?
Should he be fined? Heck no, required to clean up his mess, and make restitution to the people who had their lawns damaged? Of course he should. Throwing his ass in jail benefits only the police, prosecutor and prison businesses. It does not benefit the rest of us and most assuredly not him.
You see, one of the great things about freedom is that you are free to be an asshole, or even a nice person. Free will is a difficult thing.
While I might not agree with what he did, I really do not see how the punishment fits the crime.
Gregg said:
"Nor do I agree that a single 100# charge of tannerite is more bothersome than an all night party with base speakers shaking the walls of my house."
Personally, I'd feel pretty safe standing ten feet away from a pair of speakers, but not 100 pounds of tannerite that's exploding. The difference in the pressure wave is an order of magnitude or two.
"Did the guy actually hurt anyone? Did he actually damage or destroy property that was not his?"
The explosion sent metal fragments on to property that was not his. I believe the article mentions a distance of a quarter mile. If I started shooting a handgun through a target and across your lawn, would you walk out and say: "Rock on, buddy! You're not hurting anyone!"
"Should he be fined? Heck no, required to clean up his mess, and make restitution to the people who had their lawns damaged? Of course he should."
I'd rather have the courts fine him. Let a landscaper or road worker fix the mess. I'm not a big fan of "creative sentencing".
"You see, one of the great things about freedom is that you are free to be an asshole, or even a nice person. Free will is a difficult thing."
Actually, your freedom ends where the next guy's begins. I think the responsibility part is the most difficult. And to clarify, I don't think he should get prison time for being an asshole, nor do I think this is a state or federal matter.
Post a Comment