State Representative (R-moran) threatens to shoot "innocent bystander" (Maine)

http://www.pressherald.com/news/State-rep-threatens-to-shoot-innocent-bystander.html

A state representative from Garland was arrested Saturday morning for pointing a handgun at a man at point-blank range in a Dunkin Donuts parking lot.

Republican Frederick Ladd Wintle, 58, faces charges of criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon and carrying a concealed weapon for pulling a gun on Morning Sentinel photographer Michael Seamans, of Sidney.

In what police termed a “bizarre” series of events, Wintle allegedly started talking to Seamans about the infant that died this week at Mid-Maine Homeless Shelter on Ticonic Street and said he was looking for the mother’s drug dealer.

He then pulled a .22-caliber handgun out of his pants’ waistband and waved it at Seamans in the Dunkin Donuts parking lot, located on Kennedy Memorial Drive.

<more>

...republican representatives shouldn't be allowed to carry?

Throw the morans in jail when they try to impose their asshole GOP/NRA/Douchebagger opinions with guns

dumbasses

yup

Anybody that brandishes a firearm without a real cause (such as being robbed or stopping a rape, etc.) should have their ass tossed in jail.

I believe people should have the right to conceal carry a firearm, but that doesn't mean I don't think a great deal of responsibility goes along with that. Somebody who abuses that right should do the time for it.

and get a real job or do the same "fundraising" like another Republican asshole named Newt.

or would it be grounds for a "Castle Law" CCW 2A Freedom solution?????

either way, it proves that guns are not the answer

yup

The article said he was charged with concealed carry. That means that he did not have a CCW.

To answer your question, if some Republican asshole waved any kind of weapon in my face, peace will not be the answer.

:shrug:

I took you CCW ref as a cheap shot at CCW in general. Frankly, his happy ass should be in jail.

REC to counter your un-rec.

geez, this thread is turning into a wreck.

:hi:

It made the local paper. If the Dem that runs against him doesn't bring it up, he or she would also be a dumbass. The point of the OP had nothing to do with informing the electorate and everything to do with guilt by association and propaganda.

UNREC. If anyone from Maine that does not get the local paper, even cut.

Whenever I see OPs like this it seems like the point is all gunowner (left or right) are as mentally unhealthy as this guy. That is what I mean by guilt by association. Since we all agree that he is an asshole or mentally ill, and he should be in either jail or mental hospital, I kind of fail to see the point.

Since assault with a deadly weapon is a felony and I did not see the word "alleged" in the article, it is safe to assume it is or will be a federal crime for him to possess any firearm for the rest of his life (or the Federal Firearms Act 1938 is amended, which I doubt since it is one of the few things Brady and NRA agree on.)

not much more. MIGHT have been anti-all gun intent, but I doubt it.

Also posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1148292

:D

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

yup

nice to see something like one of the bogus studies or the latest absurd nonsense from Helmke's mouth more often. Newspaper articles where we all sit around agreeing that his ass should be in jail or the mental hospital (you do agree on that right?) is rather ummmmmmmmm bland and pointless.
Now if this clown picked the wrong person to pull this stunt on, then it could be a worthwhile disscussion on what is and what is not proper force.

so shit is only important if someone gets hurt? what is wrong with you?

"Bizarre" is simply insufficient to describe this conduct as written.

Two possibilities:

1. Wintle is totally insane and needs to hospitalized in lock-up or
2. This is a hatchet job.

Judgment withheld pending details.

Semper Fi,

at innocent bystanders that is.

The Moran Vigilante was looking for homeless people to abuse with his gun.

yup

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

"Ridicule Is Man's Most Potent Weapon."

From what I can see, it is your only weapon.

Semper Fi,

There seems to be a huge crop of looney toons in the Waterville area, starting with LePage. I worked my butt off in the Waterville area for Obama before the election and now I'm wondering if it will be safe to do it again in 2012.

They back down when stood up too just like the schoolyard type. I did a term paper on the freedom riders. Some of the personal accounts were interesting. More than a couple of times, an African-American or white liberal or two with a revolver sent the Klan scurrying like roaches hit with light.
We are not talking about Clinton/Dole or Ike/Stevenson, we are talking about Obama/Bachman. It is a choice between kids and grandkids to grow up in a democracy or a corporate distopia not seen since the middle ages. For me, that is worth fighting and dieing for.

I'm no longer a Maine resident because we now live in Florida. We have a camp in the Belgrade Lakes and spend about 5 months there in the summer. Next summer I will, once again, call the Dem Headquarters in Augusta and ask what I can do for the Obama campaign. In 2008 I canvassed many neighborhoods in Waterville, phone banked at night, and also registered voters. I'm sure that by next summer, most of the voters will be thoroughly sick of the tea baggers and LePage. You can see it happening now. We can't let any of those bullies win!

Shtick+Drive-by news post

you unrec'd this why?

Unrec for jpaks normal shtick he/she/it normally posts (everything is because of the evil NRA/GOP conspiracy) + driveby Posting, no opinion, no explanation why the story was posted, no policy statement, just a news story.

thanks for the reply i guess... :eyes:

about every anti-gun post even if the gun owner is an idiot?

of a well-regulated militia.

language of 1776 era and then get back with that comment.

That some of those will do wrong things with guns is no reason to take my guns away from me. The Representative in the article committed a felony, did not have a CCW, and should be arrested, prosecuted, and tried. If found guilty then he should go to prison, like any other felon. But don't use him to try to infringe upon my rights.

Where is Gary Kleck when you need him?!?!?!

:bounce:

If you'd actually bothered to read Kleck & Gertz's paper, as opposed to Hemenway's mendacious attempted hatchet-job of it, you might have picked up that one of the criteria for counting an incident as a DGU was that the respondent had to be able to articulate what offense the alleged assailant was actually attempting to commit.

Note that using those same criteria, Cook & Ludwig subsequently came up with an estimate of 1.5 million defensive gun users a year. Yes, yes, I'm fully aware Cook & Ludwig spend several paragraphs trying to explain away their findings, but that raises the question why they used Kleck & Gertz's methodology to begin with. The most straightforward explanation is that they couldn't find fault with Kleck & Gertz's methodology as presented and figured K&G's curiously high estimate resulted from K&G surreptitiously fudging the numbers or some other flaw in the execution, and that if they--C&L--performed the same experiment, the results would be markedly different. As it turned out, they were wrong, forcing them to try to hand-wave away their own results rather than admit that those results actually supported Kleck & Gertz's.

one of the criteria for counting an incident as a DGU was that the respondent had to be able to articulate what offense the alleged assailant was actually attempting to commit.

Of course we all know that republiklan politicians NEVER lie. Do I need to add a sarcasm smilie?

Note that using those same criteria, Cook & Ludwig subsequently came up with an estimate of 1.5 million defensive gun users a year.

So what you're saying is that you believe that K&G's survey was accurate, +/- ONE MILLION or so. Inneresting.

Because, in actual fact, they did not. Kleck & Gertz applied three criteria for counting a claimed DGU as such, to wit:

• the respondent had to have actually seen the assailant;
• the respondent had to be able to articulate what offense the assailant was attempting to commit; and
• the respondent needed, at the very least, to have displayed a firearm or made verbal reference to the fact he had it on him.

By way of example, there were two responses in the survey in which the respondent claimed to have had a DGU.

In the first, the respondent heard a scratching/rummaging noise at the rec room window in the night. He shouted "I've got a gun" and the noise stopped.

In the second, a motorist pulled up to a stop sign and stated a pedestrian started to walk up to his car, whereupon he drew a handgun and pointed it at the pedestrian, who fled.

These examples have been used to supposedly show the low credibility of DGU claims accepted into the study, but what such claimants curiously fail to mention is these were examples of claimed DGUs that were discarded by K&G because they failed to meet the criteria. In the first, the respondent didn't actually see any assailant, and in the second, the respondent failed to describe what criminal offense the pedestrian was supposedly trying to commit. If anything, these examples demonstrate the soundness of the K&G study in that the respondents claimed DGUs without realizing their descriptions did not meet the criteria to be counted as valid DGUs.


Not quite. Any survey based on a sample of the population is going to have a margin of error, and K&G acknowledge theirs must have, just like any other. But by that same token, so did Cook & Ludwig's, and because their survey used a smaller sample than Kleck & Gertz's, the margin of error is concomitantly wider, to the extent that the upper end of their estimated range comfortably overlaps with the lower end of Kleck & Gertz's, at around 2.1 million.

But it's revealing how you assume that only K&G could be inaccurate.

(At this juncture, I will reiterate a caveat I've expressed before on this forum, which is that both the K&G and the C&L studies were performed in the early to mid-1990s, when violent crime levels were about double what they are now, and it is accordingly prudent to assume that DGU numbers will have dropped concomitantly in the interim.)

the respondent had to have actually seen the assailant;

Easy. The lie sounds much better when you say you saw the "assailaint."

the respondent had to be able to articulate what offense the assailant was attempting to commit;

Easy. Robbery. Home invasion. Assault.

the respondent needed, at the very least, to have displayed a firearm or made verbal reference to the fact he had it on him.

Easy. I mean this goes without saying. If you're claiming a DGU, of course you're going to reference a gun.

Any survey based on a sample of the population is going to have a margin of error

A margin of error that's over 1/3 of the total number claimed? A margin of error OVER A MILLION?

But it's revealing how you assume that only K&G could be inaccurate.

Actually, I've said several times that there isn't any way to accurately judge how many DGU's happen in a given time period. I don't cite the NCVS number or the C&L number because (unlike some folks) I don't like using bullshit numbers to support my point of view.

Jesus Quintana: You ready to be fucked, man? I see you rolled your way into the semis. Dios mio, man. Liam and me, we're gonna fuck you up.
The Dude: Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Jesus Quintana: Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
The Dude: Jesus.
Jesus Quintana: You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.
Walter Sobchak: Eight-year-olds, Dude.

Not really what you'd call "guessing," though, is it? You appear to be assuming that the interviewers asked the respondents whether the criteria applied. They didn't; the respondents had to volunteer that information of their own accord. And in over 10% of claimed DGUs, the respondents failed to do so, and their claims were therefore discarded.
Not to the interviewer, to the alleged assailant. The respondent had to describe, of his own initiative, that he, for example, told the alleged assailant (henceforth simply "assailant" because I don't feel like typing "alleged" a couple of dozen times) "get away--I've got a gun," or showed it to the assailant, or pointed it at the assailant, etc. Thus, an incident in which the respondent claimed to have told the assailant/intruder to go away, and had a gun on his person but did not inform the assailant about the presence of the gun would not have been counted as a DGU.


No. Read again what I wrote. This time, try reading what I actually said, not what you'd like me to have said.

And while I enjoyed The Big Lebowski (it's been a while since I've seen it, though), I fail to see what a work of fiction has to with this discussion.

just more BS from the Gun forums resident supporter of the ATF, DEA and and apparently every other government agency that threatens our civil liberties..

:D

...though I agree I would want something with a bit more punch. But for somebody that may have some physical disabilities and can't handle any sort of recoil a .22 does make a nice option. I don't know if the above person is in such a state, but it is a reason I can think of that somebody would conceal carry a .22 for defense.

a larger calibre: the small bullets can wander unpredictably through tissue

....the smaller caliber also lacks the "stopping power" of a larger caliber. The wound may be harder to treat, but it doesn't generally cause the same instant shock to the system that a larger caliber generally will, which means the person being shot is more likely to retain some ability to do you harm.

for that, I recommend what John Dillinger used to break out of the Crown Point, IL jail. http://www.johndillingerhistoricalmuseum.4t.com/whats_new_1.html