Participant at KKK initiation wounded

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/24/kla...n.ap/index.html

 

JOHNSON CITY, Tennessee (AP) -- A bullet fired in the air during a Ku Klux Klan initiation ceremony came down and struck a participant in the head, critically injuring him, authorities said.

 

Gregory Allen Freeman, 45, was charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment in the Saturday night incident that wounded Jeffery S. Murr, 24.

 

About 10 people, including two children, had gathered for the ceremony. The man who was being initiated was blindfolded, tied with a noose to a tree and shot with paintball guns as Freeman fired a pistol in the air to provide the sound of real gunfire, Sheriff Fred Phillips said.

 

A bullet struck Murr on the top of the head and exited at the bottom of his skull, authorities said.

 

Freeman fled the ceremony but was arrested near his home, authorities said. He was released on $7,500 bail.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oy. Morons. LOL I BET THE BULLETS WE SHOOT INTO THE SKY WILL GO INTO SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr. Tom 0]

What goes up must come down.

 

This Freeman fellow should get a medal for trying to thin out the gene pool. Gee, one less disgusting racist in the world... anyone here going to miss him? The only pity here is that he didn't empty his clip into the air.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Am I a bad person for finding this funny?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Can it really be considered assault, considering that he wasn't even firing at anyone?

 

I mean, yeah, it's dumb, but what's the legal definition for assault? I would think that it'd have to involve some intent to maim or kill, but I don't know the laws (Let alone US ones) that well.

[CanadianChris 0]

Am I a bad person for finding this funny?

Nah. I'm still laughing at it.

 

And yes, this meets the legal definition of assault (intentional use of force without victim's consent causing serious bodily harm).

Edited November 25, 2003 by CanadianChris

[The Metal Maniac 0]

But, this guy evidently wanted to join...and thus, wouldn't he have HAD to give them consent? I mean, there's probably a difference between "Go ahead and shoot in the air" and "land a bullet on my head", but hey.

 

I dunno...I just don't think he should be tried for something like assault when this was really just a fucking stupid mistake.

[NoCalMike 0]

remove the KIDS from the scene and I really wish the shooter would have had a machine gun, which would have taken care of the whole mess of them.

[Highland 0]

No, the kids would only grow into worthless slugs like their parents; better that they be caught in the hail as well.

I'm not sure if what he did constitutues assault, but I am sure it is at the least reckless endangerment, if not depraved indifference.

[snuffbox 0]

retards make me laugh

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

retards make me laugh

 

Consider this was in TN and the KKK I'm going to say they were rednecks.

 

Hick: Hey yall watch me shot this here gun up in the air there.

 

Hick2: Aint that dangerous?

 

Hick: Hell no. *Shoots gun in the air, bullet goes up in the air, then down into someone's head*

 

Hick: Well damn.

[CanadianChris 0]

But, this guy evidently wanted to join...and thus, wouldn't he have HAD to give them consent? I mean, there's probably a difference between "Go ahead and shoot in the air" and "land a bullet on my head", but hey.

 

I dunno...I just don't think he should be tried for something like assault when this was really just a fucking stupid mistake.

I did some looking around, and case law says that no one can consent to being seriously injured.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

But like I said...he didn't consent to getting shot, he consented to taking part in the ceremony.

 

Like, if I, of my own free will, go to a party somewhere, and a ladder falls on me because someone didn't put it away, I don't even think it'd be a question of assault - reckless endangerment sure, but assault?

[CanadianChris 0]

The act is what counts, not the event or the surroundings. And the victim cannot consent to the act of getting shot. Add to that that the idiot with the gun intentionally shot it (where a reasonable person would be able to predict that it could cause bodily harm) and that it did cause serious bodily harm, and you've got yourself an assault.

 

For the ladder example, it doesn't meet the definition because the act of leaving a ladder out doesn't consititute intentionally using force against a person. You could sue for negligence, but it doesn't warrant criminal charges.

[CanadianChris 0]

Whoops, double post.

 

But why are we discussing legalities? Let's laugh our asses off!

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Agreed.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA~!!!!!

[Guest PhantMan]

God knows one day I'll visit redneck America and see it with my eyes.

 

is it true that in redneck america guys marry their sisters and have retarded kids?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Damnit, that's not how they were supposed to conduct the initiation into my club...

[Guest Cerebus]

Damnit, that's not how they were supposed to conduct the initiation into my club...

 

Are they supposed to take my baby away?

 

(kills self for making the lamest joke on CE in quite a while)

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wonder if this falls under the Hate Crimes category?...

[Guest Choken One]

Uh...He shot his own "people"...so uh no but for kicks...Have his Jury be all black.

[Styles 0]

Waits for the ACLU to somehow defend all of this...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

God knows one day I'll visit redneck America and see it with my eyes.

 

is it true that in redneck america guys marry their sisters and have retarded kids?

Well, not in any sort of legal sense, but I'm sure there's plenty of inbred goober families down in the hollers of KY.

[Firestarter 0]

Waits for the ACLU to somehow defend all of this...

"Yes, my loving wife Linda and three wonderful children, Ben, Robby and Stephanie, will be devastated when I am killed next month," ACLU attorney Harvey Gross said. "But I recognize that, in a very real sense, it would be a victory for Mr. Carver and his fellow hatemongers if I did not burn to death, because their terrible message of bigotry and intolerance would be all the more effective if suppressed."

 

The Carver case is one of several controversial legal battles with which the ACLU has been involved this judicial year. In State of California v. Tubbs, the organization defended the right of a San Francisco art gallery to display a piece of performance art in which innocent passersby are shot to death by gunmen. In February, the ACLU went to U.S. Appeals Court to defend the Grand Wizard of the Coahoma County, Mississippi, chapter of the Ku Klux Klan's right to beat a black man to death and spray-paint 'White Pride' across his chest.

- ACLU Defends Nazis' Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters

[Anakin Flair 0]

I was wondering about that article, untill I saw where it came from.

 

*sigh* fooled again. Ah, well, I guess I'll just sit back and laugh at the hate-mongering idiots.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What a heartwarming story.

[Guest thetrendsetter]

Civilily, It'd be contributory negligence, steps could have been taken to avoid what happened on both sides.

 

However, Criminally, which I'm not as knowledgeable about, I think guy at the top of the thread is right, it would be assault. not with intent, even though a gun was used I believe. All though, if the guy really wants to be in KKK, he'll drop the charges for assault, and the guy will get reckless endangerment and there's probably numerous firearm offenses he used. Unless the guy dies, then it's manslaughter.

[Anakin Flair 0]

I always wondered what happes to all of those bullets that the terrorists shoot off at their rallies.