lol
 

Gracie you are my favorite on here, so funny, and I remember Dale Evans

But where's the horse??? :22yikes:

Wait for the facts to be proven: read the report before you decide
 

Before you assume anything about what happened and why it happened, always realize there are two sides to every story and to wait till you hear both sides before reaching conclusions.

I read the article in this link:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep...driving-schoo/

According to the report:

Dooley saw James give permission and came out of his house armed with a firearm and told the teen he was not allowed to skateboard there.

James pointed out that there were no signs prohibiting skateboarding.

Dooley then left his driveway, walked across Partridge Point Trail and approached James.

As Dooley walked over to him, James stepped off the edge of the basketball court and walked toward Dooley in the grass.

Dooley showed James the handle of the firearm in his waistband and kept insisting no skateboarding was allowed.

When Dooley realized that James was not going to tell the teen to stop skateboarding, he cursed at James and started walking away.

James called out to Dooley, asking why he was showing his gun.

Dooley turned around, pointed the gun at James, who lunged forward to grab the weapon.

The two men struggled over the firearm, then fell to the ground and the gun went off, striking James once in the chest.

James told his daughter to call an ambulance. He then collapsed.

A witness ran to help James and called 911.

Dooley remained at the scene and unloaded his weapon before deputies arrived.

JimJoe, your recount of the event is even more frightening than the TH's original post. Why would the man take a gun to something like this and display it in such a manner? He could have called the police. The weapon was absolutely unnecessary, especially when he was told the neighbor had given the boy permission -- this showed the boy had some respect for the neighborhood and the people in it. Personally, I hope the shooter gets the maximum sentence. Barring Alzheimer's or a brain tumor, there is absolutely no excuse for what this man did.

I don't see any difference from the account that I gave. The shooter had no reason to have a gun at the playground. The version the police believe is such that they charged him with manslaughter.

The man had a permit to carry, that is a reason.
 

He can carry his weapon anywhere not restricted in his permit.
We do not know all the facts. Wait for the trial.
Read my post to redwitch please.
JJ

Wait for the trial!!
 

The article said Dooley had a permit to carry his weapon. That means he did not bring it to the fight. He lawfully carried his weapon. He may carry it most of the time.

James pointed out that there were no signs prohibiting skateboarding.
Many basketball courts do not allow skateboarding because it is unsafe to mix the two activities. It is possible the sign had been removed.

As Dooley walked over to him, James stepped off the edge of the basketball court and walked toward Dooley in the grass.
James walked toward Dooley after they had been arguing. James walked toward Dooley. When you have your daughter with you, you teach her to walk away, and if necessary call the police.

James called out to Dooley, asking why he was showing his gun.
What kind of question is that? It appears he is trying to continue the conversation. Dooley tried to walk away and James continued the conversation by asking why he was showing his gun. He should have just left it, especially since he had his daughter with him, and called the police if he was shown a gun without him provoking the showing.

Dooley turned around, pointed the gun at James, who lunged forward to grab the weapon. If Defendant claims James lunged first, this is totally different. Wait for the trial.

The two men struggled over the firearm, then fell to the ground and the gun went off, striking James once in the chest. Does that not sound like it at least MIGHT be an unintentional shooting?

Dooley remained at the scene and unloaded his weapon before deputies arrived.
Most criminals run. Most persons in the right stay to face justice.

Though a small pocket knife was found at the park, there was no indication it belonged to James, Docobo said. Let's wait to give the defense a chance to prove it may be connected to the incident. If nothing else it may show this is a dangerous park along with evidence of other crimes there and high police calls there where you may want to have your gun if you have a permit to carry.

One thing I found out in 31 years of defense and prosecution practice is the news media FREQUENTLY do not have the facts straight or have all of the facts. They can only go by initial reports which are often mistaken or misleading. I did work for 31 years. I know from lots of experience. If you want to make a fair decision, wait for the trial... that is all I am saying. The defense may claim self defense, or accident. I do not know. Wait for the trial to hear all of the facts before you decide.

If the accused was a friend or relative of yours, that is what you would be saying.

Substitute police officer for James and you also get a different perspective on this.

Wait for the trial!!

My whole point is that guns done solve problems like this. My whole point is that untrained individuals should not be using, showing, brandishing or threatening with a gun. If that gun had not been there, James would have been alive. It's a stretch to think that Dooley was in fear of his life. This father was not going to kill Dooley with his bare hands.

You do not know what happened so wait for the trial
 

Do you believe a 41 year old man cannot kill or seriously injure a 69 year old man? I have seen it many times in my practice of law.
Would he do it in front of his daughter? I do not know this man but I have seen hundreds of cases where men injured many people in front of their daughters including their wifes and their daughters.
If the knife found belonged to the "victim", would you feel differently?

I walk my dog frequently. I have had to scare off dogs from attacking her using a stick I carry. I had one owner chase me down the street threatening to kick my A$$ because I used the stick to ward his dog off who was not on a leash, but I didn't even touch the dog. He was a young man with a very threatening voice, build, and behavior, probably drunk. His children were in the yard. He literally chased me down the street screaming threats. That is a true story.
Should I wait for him to kick my A$$, (Do I know how much damage he intends to do to me? Do I have to rely on this maniac to know when to stop hurting me?), before I show him the butt of my gun? As I am walking away, if lunges for my gun, do I not have right to at least struggle to keep possession of it?

AND Your point is, if my gun goes off, you say I am guilty of a crime, and it is all my fault for having a gun on me.

You need to understand that in this day and age, there are places that are dangerous, and people who are capable of anything.
I should not be required to be UNARMED, hope that kick my A$$ does not mean my serious injury or death (when I am being chased by a maniac).
I have not only personally experienced this but dealt with those situations many times as a defense attorney AND a prosecutor. A police officer will not jump out of the bushes to save you. They take reports and try to find the criminal AFTER ALL THE DAMAGE IS DONE. Police officers advised me to get a permit and carry a gun to protect myself. They carry theirs even when off duty.

I have taught both of my children that the number one rule in life is the same as boxing.
Protect YOURSELF at all times.

I and my dogs have been attacked by a killer dog, and now I carry a stick and/or pepper spray, too. Another time, I was verbally abused by an idiot who's dog was off leash (mine was on a leash) when my dog felt threatened and growled at the loose dog that was running toward us. There are so many crazies in the world, you have to be aware of your surroundings, realize the potential for dangerous situations, and always have something with you for protection (doesn't necessarily have to be a gun).

Jimjoe is right to advise us to wait to hear all the facts.

Trials seem more about the opportunity for lawyers to spin the facts for their clients and not actually get at them. The facts are up for the jury to decide.

Sounds like Talk Host is right about this being some idiot with a gun. His lawyer might want us to believe something different but his actions speak louder than any lawyer's coloring. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep...driving-schoo/

So much for the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
JJ

I don't know if the man was in fear of his life but the reality is he wouldn't have been had ne not been showing his gun butt. Sorry, I have little sympathy for him. As I said I carry, but there is no way I would show I have a weapon on me unless I planned to use it. That's what I was taught -- a gun is rarely a deterrant to a criminal or someone determined to do bodily harm, so don't show it unless you plan to use it.

If I were at a playground with my daughter and a neighbor came up acting rude and showing he was carrying, I'd be livid. Just by showing the weapon he's endangering my child. How dare he???? Would I confront him about it? Probably. Would I do something after he was walking away? Probably not. At least not at that point -- I would, however, go and talk to him later and explain why I was so upset and how I truly felt he was putting my child in danger.

Regardless of anything else, what happened was and is a tragedy. It could have been prevented by either of the men and it most certainly would not have happened had one man not felt he had the right to carry and SHOW he was carrying. Sorry, there is a right way and a wrong way to carry -- this man certainly demonstrated the wrong way and the repercussions of carryin in this manner.

(Boy, has the topic of this thread evolved!)

I have thought for quite a long time before posting in this thread.

I am worried most that you're all paranoid, absolutely convinced that the worst is not only going to happen, but it will happen tonight/tomorrow . . .

I am frankly very, very sad! :sad: :sad: :sad:

SWR
:beer3:

I had a talk with our family physician about this too just yesterday. He says that being fearful is a symptom of aging. I guess that can't be changed.

What makes me very very sad is that the worst does happen to often. Labeling it paranoia is the wrong thing to do. We must all be cautious. Living in the Villages is not a bullet proof vest. It's a wonderful place, and being vigilant is not being paranoid.

I put my seat belt on every time I am in my car regardless of here I am driving. If i thought that I was going to be in a car accident that day I would simply stay at home. The problem is that I have no idea if and when I am likely to have a car accident but still buckle up regardless of the small chance I would need the protection. Carrying a gun is like that. The odds of needing it are very small but not zero. If we knew when we would need a gun we would stay at home. The problem is that we have no idea of when we would need a gun and like many do with seat belts, we buckle up just in case. It has nothing to do with paranoia.

I am only in my mid 50's and I am not afraid. I am not paranoid. I feel strong, happy and confident.

I do know that bad things happen to good people.

I am aware of my surroundings; I carry simple protection, and I am cautious. Just like I was in my 30's, and 40's. And, just like I was when I lived in places other than TV. (I was too naive in my 20's and younger to know that anything bad could happen to me). I expect that I'll feel and think the same way as I age into my 60's, 70's, 80's and beyond. Just because I will be older, doesn't mean all of a sudden I will become paranoid and afraid. Because I will be the same person, I will continue to be vigilant and aware.

Just like Talk Host, I am saddened by people who think that being cautious and vigilant is the same thing as being afraid and paranoid. Your thought process is FLAWED.

I could place labels on those that do not think the same as I do (like naive, or worse) but I try not to judge others. And, if I fail, I try not to say it out loud.

We should expect the security for which we are willing to pay.
 

In a discussion of whether the developer should provide security, do not forget that expecting additional levels of security does not necessarily mean that we should expect the developer to be "out of pocket" to upgrade security. It should simply mean that a majority of residents decide an upgrade is necessary and ask to developer to handle the implementation. Like everything else here, the residents are the ones that incur the cost. Not one thing at The Villages is provided gratis by the developer. The developer either justifies the expense as a cost of doing business or passes the cost to the residence. Consequently, if security becomes a real issue, we must avoid the mistake of minimizing it because some feel that to advocate additional security is tantamount to putting additional "burden" on the developer.

I hate to disagree. Being cautious and vigilant is one thing. Excessive fear is another. AND although you may think that you will be the same in your later years, your body and your brain do change. It is not a character weakness. That is kind of like saying, I won't get Alzheimer's.

Not everyone is excessively fearful who is older but it happens, probably because of a drop in the level of Serotonin in the brain as we age.

We need to treasure each other and overlook the wrinkles and everything else that comes with aging.

There is a decent article on this on WebMD entitled Anxiety in the elderly.

I am in my early 50's and just as you stated, I am not afraid, nor paranoid, and believe me I am very strong, happy and confident.
As I stated in a previous post, I know by personal experience that bad things can and do happen to good people. But I do not live my life in fear. I do not think about doom and gloom. Can I say when I am in my 60's, 70's, 80's I will not be afraid. No, I've witnessed others, including my parents, not necessarily living in fear, but let's just say becoming overly cautious of things they were doing not that long ago.
I am not paranoid that something bad is going to happen. You may all disagree, but my feeling is that I, along with each and every person in TV's is entitled to feel safe. If situations warrant extra security, it should be provided.

Gracie, I am not disagreeing with you that some older folks become excessively fearful. Some do. Others might become so because they realize that an older and more frail person may be an easier target. I agree with you that some people, old and young, are overly fearful. Maybe I will become that way in later years. But that is not what we were discussing.

The discussion on this thread turned to the topic of carrying weapons. The point I am trying to make, and others have tried to make in the past is:

Just because someone may carry a gun, or lock their doors during the daytime, or carry a walking stick to ward off dogs, or pepper spray to ward off attackers, or carry any other means of protection, or take other precautions DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE AFRAID OR FEARFUL.

This is not the first time you have expressed the same idea. This is not the first time others have tried to explain that they carry protection as "insurance" (remember that conversation?).

When ever someone says anything remotely connected to crime in TV, you immediately tell everyone how safe it is in TV. Then that prompts everyone to respond to you, resulting in a very long thread regarding crime . . .

When ever someone mentions a concealed weapon, you have (more than once) said that it is sad that those people are so afraid. That prompts everyone to respond to you, resulting in a very long thread regarding carrying weapons. . . .

If you don't want anyone to think that TV is unsafe, or think that all the residents walk around with guns under their clothes, then it seems to me you might rethink your tactics when responding to those topics, because it only encourages more discussion.

Like I said in one of the many threads regarding this subject: "You seem to be a very nice person, and I pray that no evil ever befalls you. But I know not everyone is like you."

I also know that all people who take precautions, are vigilant, or even those who "carry" are not doing so because they are afraid or fearful.

You are one of the nicest people on TOTV and so I offer my apology if I have offended you. I just can't let the type of statement you made (again) go without commenting. That is stereotyping. It is not true, and it is not nice nor polite to label people or call people names.

If you insist on restating this same idea again on the same topic in the future (that people who carry protection or take precautions are doing so because they are afraid or fearful) . . . next time I will just copy this post and paste it onto the thread. You've just about worn me out.

Love you Gracie, from K9.

My two cents worth on additional security: there is no need for additional security in TV. It is a pretty safe place to live. There is already enough security with Community Watch, people at the gates, and good neighbors who are mostly home all day watching out for each other.

Take common sense precautions. Bad things will happen now and again in TV, but not as often as in other places.

Let us not blow things out of porportion, eh?

Ones general outlook changes as you get older. From your mid 50's to your mid 60's to your mid 70's etc. IMO it's just a natural age thing. It doesn't mean you quit living a normal happy life, it just means a lot of things are different for a variety of reasons and we all adjust in our own ways.

I think TV is a very safe place BUT...
it will not be long before criminals decide this place is ripe for the pickins..

In my area of practice We frequently had hotel guests targeted. They have cash, they are unfamiliar with the area, they won't want to come back to testify, and they are IQ smart, but street stupid.

Crooks like easy targets, rich ones, ones that don't fight back.
Let me guess where that would be.... hmm

Think like a crook if you want to reduce your chances of being a victim.

And one more thing. I am not related to Sarah Palin to those of you who think I must be stupid or crazy (paranoid). If you think that you belong in the political forum because there that is a typical not right response to someone you disagree with.
JJ

I worked in high crime areas for many years. Gary In, East Chicago In, Hammond In, South side of Chicago (hi there Leroy Brown), Detroit..............you get the picture. I lived in Griffith at the time and it was right next door from Gary and Hammond.
There were so many murders and shootings that they do not even make the front page of the papers anymore................so I do understand the concern over security.
Crime will happen no matter where you live so it just boils down to being observant of things around you. If you see something that seems..........and feels out of place, call the police and have them check it out.
Most people carry a cel-phone and should program the phone numbers of the various police agencies as well as community watch and the fire dept.
I carried a weapon for many years and at this stage of my life I do not feel the need to.....but that is a personal choice. Florida gun laws allow you to have one in the car and that is ok by me for when I go somewhere I am not real familiar with.
If you carry....don't show it and if you pull it, be prepared to use it.
I prefer an old heavy putter in my golf cart. I can practice putting when I want and it is also a self defense weapon.....
Times are not the same as when we all grew up and you need to watch out for your neighbors and get to know who belongs in the neighborhood.

"Security offered by the gate attendants"

I have a very good friend who works a gate. He has for years. I have even (although I'm not suppose to) visited him inside the box while he's at work. He has told me on a number of occasions that they do not (THAT'S DO NOT) have any control or concern about the people who come in and out day or night.

He has said that during the night hours, cars containing several people of various ages, genders and races come and go. I asked him what he does when an unsavory looking group enters at 3 a.m.

His answer was "nothing, what am I going to do? I'm not suppose to do anything. I can't call the cops every time a car looks suspicious."

He also laughed when he told me that every night (THAT'S EVERY NIGHT) cars containing one, two or three young women come in after midnight, and leave an hour or so later. I can't imagine what they are doing in The Villages.

And who said House Calls were a thing of the past.

Blissful Boomer

Talk Host

Are you now assuming that "any" woman who enters a gate after midnight and exits within an hour is up to something .......dangerous assumption.

SO all lady residents, make certain you come in the gate before midnight (really before 9 for we are all to be in bed by then (Opps)) ..otherwise I guess you will fall into this category!!! WOW!

Obviously Gate guards are needed afterhours to priovide needed directions!

Good Deeds only
 

I am confident they are here only to perform good deeds.
JJ

I think I said "young" women. I also think you know what I mean.

Looks like the basis for a brand new rumor......more assumtions that will be spread around.

i wonder whats considered young in the villages

Read back issues of the paper.

That's the late night pool cleaning crew of course.
 

They are just addicted to skinny dipping but need to do it at 2 in the morning. They even have a club-- the Florida Young Naturists.

And what should I be looking for?

Why, most certainly, JJ. I am sure.

Who would ever think that it could possibly be......

oh......you know.....any of that.....

oh......how can I say it.....ever so delicately? ...........

"Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap"

Boomer

Talk Host,

Can you tell us what is the purpose of the gate attendants? Has your friend ever told you what their instructions are during training (if there is any training . . . )? Why are they there? It has to be for more than just greeting and traffic control. :wave:

There are much simpler and less expensive ways to control traffic. Paying all these gate attendents is expensive.

Whatever you think to be untrue.

It's well known that the gate attendants are smiling faces and direction givers. Since most of the Villages streets are public streets, they can't stop traffic, all they can do is slow it. "greeting and traffic control" combined with directions is what they are there for.

I'm sure they are trained on what they can do and can't do. What they can't do it refuse admission to anyone.