Man Shot at for Crashing into Fence, He Still Offers to Fix the Fence

[Deleted]

seems the father was trying to shoot the tires and the son just herd gunshots and came out running. I think you should read the article a little more and find out what the term "decide to murder" means.

Oh, I didn't realize we were pretending these two yahoos were expert marksmen. You honestly think "he was trying to shoot the tires" somehow makes this responsible? He fired a gun at a vehicle with a person in it, killing that person was clearly an acceptable consequence of his actions to him. Unless he is delusional and believes this is Hollywood, he can't really believe this is how guns work, he just shoots out the tires and everything is cool. I'm not sure which is more absurd, these two morons' response to the incident, or your defense that "well he shot at the tires". It's like listening to people say cops should shoot to disarm people; real life isn't a damned movie.

[Ghostpanther]

Well, the Patriot Act seems to disagree with this. We do actually take away people's Constitutional rights based on a small percentage of dumbasses all the time. I agree we shouldn't, but saying we don't is just wildly inaccurate.

Appears to those who hate it. The SC has upheld it's Constitutionality when some controversial parts of it was challenged. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...of-Patriot-Act

And the SC is the final authority in reference to any law which is challenged based on a violation of the Constitution. That is just how it works here.

[quijote3000]

This is nuts!

[Phlegethon]

Driving from San Francisco to Seattle, I always have trouble staying awake in Oregon. So I feel for the driver. Otherwise its starting to feel like the Wild West out here. Or like Hill Valley California in 1955.

Roseburg father, son accused of shooting up truck that crashed into their front yard

Sheriff's deputies in Douglas County arrested a father and his teenage son after they say the pair opened fire on a pickup truck that had accidentally crashed into the family's front yard in Roseburg.

Armed with a .22-caliber pistol and a .40-caliber Glock, Mike and Dillen Sanderson unloaded at least 10 rounds at the brown Chevy as it sped away from their home early Wednesday, according to cops and court records.

"The guy emptied a clip at me!" the distraught driver, Adam Smith, 29, later told a Douglas County Sheriff's deputy, a probable cause affidavit shows.

The wild scene began around 5:40 a.m. when Smith, who claimed to be exhausted from working two jobs, fell asleep behind the wheel of his pickup and rolled into the Sanderson front yard, knocking over a portion of a fence, court records show.

The disturbance was enough to stir Mike Sanderson, 50, from his living room couch, where he was watching television. When Sanderson saw a truck in his front yard, he told authorities, he grabbed his gun, a .22-caliber pistol, and rushed to the front porch.

Outside, the armed homeowner trained his weapon at Smith and yelled at him to cut the engine, according to the affidavit. The sight of a gun pointed at Smith was enough to spook the disoriented driver, who started screaming and stepped on the gas.

"I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I'll fix your fence," Smith said he tried to tell Sanderson, who responded by shooting twice at Smith's truck tires, according to court documents.

Little did either man know that all of the commotion outside had woken up Mike Sanderson's 18-year-old son Dillen, who had been fast asleep in his room. Dillen Sanderson told authorities he found the household's .40-caliber Glock and bolted outside, the affidavit shows.

The teen then started shooting wildly at Smith and his pickup as it sped off, striking the rear window and several other places on the vehicle, records show. Mike Sanderson told deputies that his son fired approximately eight shots.

At least one of the bullets grazed Smith's head, the driver told officials.

After the shooting, Mike Sanderson called 911. He and his son were arrested that evening and lodged in the Douglas County Jail on suspicion of attempted assault and unlawful use of a weapon. Mike Sanderson also faces a menacing allegation in relation to the incident.

During his interview with deputies, Smith said he could still fix Sanderson's fence.


Mike Sanderson, 50, and Dillen Sanderson, 18 were arrested Wednesday night. (Douglas County Sheriff's Office)

Hahaha, fuck yeah.
God damn those are some grade A retards

[Machismo]

We do not take away the people's Constitutional rights based on the actions of a small percentages of dumb asses who abuse them.

These two should lose the right to have a firearm, as they tried to use them unlawfully, which is a felon. I would never try to shoot someone over some property damage. That is just stupid.

But, people don't seem to have any problem taking away someone else's freedom over the actions of a few.

[brimdog]

the best part is all the anit gun libs that read this and just know that these are ALL the facts and theyll be all like "See guns are bad...bad. baa baa bad!" fucking sheep i cant wait until yourre fuking done and gone

but i guess some people are wired to be more alert and reactive while the rest of you just pass judgement from the safty of your computer

[Deleted]

Appears to those who hate it. The SC has upheld it's Constitutionality when some controversial parts of it was challenged. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...of-Patriot-Act

And the SC is the final authority in reference to any law which is challenged based on a violation of the Constitution. That is just how it works here.

I think I'd disagree with this assessment on a few points. First, this wasn't a unanimous decision, so there are supreme court justices that agree it is unconstitutional. Fine, the SC has ruled, but that only means it's technically legal, it doesn't mean it's unreasonable to feel that the act violates constitutional rights on this point.

Second, this is just one of the decisions where it has actually been challenged. Given that the Supreme Court refuses to hear about 99% of cases brought before it; given how many provisions are in the Patriot Act; and given the legal requirements to actually bring such a challenge, the fact that the SC has ruled in a few cases doesn't come close to meaning that the Act itself is entirely constitutional. It just means there hasn't been a legal challenge that has been effective yet. I don't think that necessarily refutes my, or others' claims that it is a very troubling piece of legislation.

- - - Updated - - -

the best part is all the anit gun libs that read this and just know that these are ALL the facts and theyll be all like "See guns are bad...bad. baa baa bad!" fucking sheep i cant wait until yourre fuking done and gone

but i guess some people are wired to be more alert and reactive while the rest of you just pass judgement from the safty of your computer

So what facts are you expecting to come out that would justify murdering someone over a broken fence? Even if this guy deliberately smashed the fence with his car, stuck a sign on the lawn admitting it, laughed at the owner and gave him the finger, and drove away while flying a burning american flag from his car antenna, that's not justification for shooting someone. It's property damage that you're saying justifies the death penalty. It's complete lunacy that you think this is what guns are for. This is why "anit gun libs" find pro-gun people to be absurd, because this is the argument they're presented with. "Well of course they had a right to open fire on him with two weapons, he broke their fence, stupid anti gun libs" The fact that this is sensible to anyone is why allowing anyone to have a gun is so disconcerting.

[Deleted]

the best part is all the anit gun libs that read this and just know that these are ALL the facts and theyll be all like "See guns are bad...bad. baa baa bad!" fucking sheep i cant wait until yourre fuking done and gone

but i guess some people are wired to be more alert and reactive while the rest of you just pass judgement from the safty of your computer

So what you're saying is "I am waiting for evidence to support shooting somebody which is unlikely to occur"

[Allybeboba]

I bet he was going out there to do a citizen’s arrest.

- - - Updated - - -

But, people don't seem to have any problem taking away someone else's freedom over the actions of a few.

Strange like that isn’t it.

[Machismo]

I bet he was going out there to do a citizen’s arrest.

- - - Updated - - -



Strange like that isn’t it.

I guess people are authoritarian hypocrites, no surprise there.

[Citizen T]

He crashed, the father ran out and pointed the gun at the driver, and as a result of fear at the gun pointed at the driver he drove off.

He was threatened at gunpoint for a minor accident, but he is the retard for not thinking?

When I have minor car accident and the first thing the home owner does is pull a gun and points it at me, I get out of dodge. "Fucking retarded" is sticking around, not surrendering yourself to a random stranger pointing a gun at you.

I'd say the other persons instincts were to not get killed.

He crashed, the father ran out and pointed the gun at the driver, and as a result of fear at the gun pointed at the driver he drove off.

Reading the article correctly is a requirement.

He was threatened at gunpoint for a minor accident, but he is the retard for not thinking?

When I have minor car accident and the first thing the home owner does is pull a gun and points it at me, I get out of dodge.

"Fucking retarded" is sticking around, not surrendering yourself to a random stranger pointing a gun at you.

I'd say the other persons instincts were to not get killed.

It's fight or flight.
Who says that the dude doesn't kill me anyways after I turned off the enigne in this case?

The driver had no idea what Sanderson was planning to based on the way Sanderson was behaving it's obvious that he feared that he was about to be assaulted.

The other guy drove off and by that action says to me that he didn’t want to give authority to someone with whom he rather risk death obviously by fleeing vs facing whatever worse he thought if he didn’t whatever that might be.

As for the homeowner asserting his authority incorrectly, I would say it’s besides the point. It was the home owners actions with the gun that was in serious error.

Huh, what, Oh shit! Wall! Aarrgh.....silence. Count to 10.

Ok, I just nodded off. But it's ok, I'm still alive. Car's still running. Windshield looks fine. Fuck, I'm in someone's yard and their fence is down. What is the insurance going to say? Shit, I hope they pay, otherwise that's my bonus gone. Still shaking, damn, that could've been really bad. Doesn't feel like I am hurting anywhere, that's a good thing. Aargh, how could I be so stupid. Should've stayed awake. I'd probably better speak to the homeowner. Shit, he's going to be pissed, I know I would be. Man, this is a mess. I wonder if the guy is awake. Do I get out and go ring his doorbell? What exactly do I tell him? Or maybe he'll come out and see what happened. Oh wait, yeah, the lights just went on. Ok, calm down. Shit happens. Just be calm and reasonable. The insurance will pay for the damage. I'll apologise, it'll be o...what the f...fuck! he's got a gun! Fuck, he's going to kill me, drive fuckit, fuck fuck! Drive damnit, what the fuck, Jesus Christ, "I'll pay for your fenc..." fuck, fuck fuck!

Just a quick collection of quotes on the first two pages of this....

You are arguing against the very thing most of you use to say that homeowners shouldn't do when confronted with a burglar. You say just do what he says. He doesn't want to hurt anyone, you all say.

Lets change the story to a homeowner being woke up in the middle of the night by an armed burglar. According to most of you, the homeowner should just do what he says and he'll go away peacefully but here you are saying he should do whatever he needs to do to stay safe because he can't know what the other's intentions are.

Now I'm not supporting either party in this because I don't know all of the facts. If I'd been the driver and the homeowner pointed the gun at me I'd flee, but we only have the drivers word that the gun was pointed at him. If I'd been the homeowner, with a sudden commotion in my front yard, I would have my firearm with me when I investigate as I have no idea what is happening at the time. Once I understood it was an auto accident I would have holstered my weapon and attempted to assist. Having just been awakened, understanding this may take a few moments though..

[Dawnrage]

At this point every backyard in America just needs to come with a mounted machine gun to get this over with.

[Raelbo]

You are arguing against the very thing most of you use to say that homeowners shouldn't do when confronted with a burglar. You say just do what he says. He doesn't want to hurt anyone, you all say.

Two points: Firstly you have no way of knowing what we each have to say on the topic of what to do when confronted with a burglar.
Secondly, even if you did, it's still a false equivalence.

Lets change the story to a homeowner being woke up in the middle of the night by an armed burglar.

Or...let's not. Since, you know, they're two totally different scenarios

According to most of you, the homeowner should just do what he says and he'll go away peacefully

Really? Where did most of us say that? Or do you mean a bunch of other people who may or may not have included some of us? In which case it becomes completely moot anyway.

but here you are saying he should do whatever he needs to do to stay safe because he can't know what the other's intentions are.

When confronted with a potential threat to your life, you need to do whatever it is that will give you the best chance of survival and then hope that you made the right choice (assuming there was a right choice). Needless to say (or should be needless) this is very context dependant. In the context that is under discussion I think most people here would agree that using your vehicle to drive away from the maniacal looking crazy guy shouting and pointing his gun at you is likely to give you the best chance of survival

Now I'm not supporting either party in this because I don't know all of the facts.

Just because we don't know all the facts doesn't mean we can't debate the story, treating it as a hypothetical scenario according the facts we do have. Obviously if new facts come to light then we can reserve the right to alter our positions accordingly.

If I'd been the driver and the homeowner pointed the gun at me I'd flee, but we only have the drivers word that the gun was pointed at him. If I'd been the homeowner, with a sudden commotion in my front yard, I would have my firearm with me when I investigate as I have no idea what is happening at the time. Once I understood it was an auto accident I would have holstered my weapon and attempted to assist. Having just been awakened, understanding this may take a few moments though..

Well it's not just the driver's word about the gun. There is also forensic evidence from the actual shots fired.

But yeah, I don't think anyone has too much of an issue with the fact that the homeowner had his firearm with him when he went to investigate. It's what he did after ascertaining what had transpired that became an issue.

[Heladys]

If only the good-old-boys-with guns were armed with shoulder-fired tactical nukes, right NRA goons?

[Daedius]

or maby they didnt want someone to crash into thier shit and drive away? They told him to cut the engine, but the fucking retard sped off. I dont think id shoot at someone for crashing into my fence but i understand why they did it. Maby people should stop being such empty headed retards when introduced into any situation where they have to think with thier fucking head. Becuase driving off was not what he should have done.

Is this world just devoid of common sense on everyones part. Holy fuck. 95% of the situations i see posted here wouldnt even be a story if one retard didnt decide to escalate a situation by doing somthing fucking stupid.

You're one to talk about "common sense"...

[Ripster42]

He crashed, the father ran out and pointed the gun at the driver, and as a result of fear at the gun pointed at the driver he drove off.

Reading the article correctly is a requirement.

That's not even what it says. It says he drove away after being shot at twice.

[Citizen T]

Two points: Firstly you have no way of knowing what we each have to say on the topic of what to do when confronted with a burglar.
Secondly, even if you did, it's still a false equivalence.

I was not saying you in the sense of those I quoted. The post was targetted to MMOC-OT in general which was the purpose of the first sentence of my post.

Or...let's not. Since, you know, they're two totally different scenarios

They are both scenarios of being confronted by an armed person in a situation where you are at less than 100% mental capacity.

Really? Where did most of us say that? Or do you mean a bunch of other people who may or may not have included some of us? In which case it becomes completely moot anyway.

Again this was aimed at the forum as a whole not individuals that I quotoed. The general consensus of the progressive members of this forum is that guns are evil and when confronted with an armed person you should do as they say and they will leave you in peace. You can call the police afterwards.

but here you are saying he should do whatever he needs to do to stay safe because he can't know what the other's intentions are.

This is exactly my point. If I am unarmed, I will try to flee. If I am armed I will flee or use my weapon depending on the situation.

Just because we don't know all the facts doesn't mean we can't debate the story, treating it as a hypothetical scenario according the facts we do have. Obviously if new facts come to light then we can reserve the right to alter our positions accordingly.

True but statements that include "retard" or "fucking retarded" are pretty much someone making judgements not debating a hypothetical scenario.

Well it's not just the driver's word about the gun. There is also forensic evidence from the actual shots fired.

But yeah, I don't think anyone has too much of an issue with the fact that the homeowner had his firearm with him when he went to investigate. It's what he did after ascertaining what had transpired that became an issue.

There is no forensic evidence of when the gun was pointed at the driver. The forensic evidence is that actual shots were fired. This proves little to nothing about when the gun was pointed or even if the gun was fired while the driver was even there.

[jellmoo]

When the hell did "walk outside and calmly exchange insurance info" turn into "Imma point my gun at him and yell!"

The reaction was utterly ridiculous and could have resulted in innocent people being killed. Over a fucking fence.

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

These are things that happen in the real world.

really though? do they? or do they only happen in countries where guns arent banned?

cos in the real world i, and literally anyone ive ever known, have never pointed a gun at someone, nor have had a gun pointed at me. cos ya know, in the real world, most of us dont have a gun culture/second amendment bullshit

[Deleted]

Lets change the story to a homeowner being woke up in the middle of the night by an armed burglar. According to most of you, the homeowner should just do what he says and he'll go away peacefully but here you are saying he should do whatever he needs to do to stay safe because he can't know what the other's intentions are.

Not a comparable situation. One is where the one threatened is in unknown territory, knows he has caused an issue that people might be angry about, and is faced with what could potentially be his last moments. Safety is away from here so he flees. Threatened in your own home the rules change and it's totally different scenario.

Now I'm not supporting either party in this because I don't know all of the facts. If I'd been the driver and the homeowner pointed the gun at me I'd flee, but we only have the drivers word that the gun was pointed at him. If I'd been the homeowner, with a sudden commotion in my front yard, I would have my firearm with me when I investigate as I have no idea what is happening at the time. Once I understood it was an auto accident I would have holstered my weapon and attempted to assist. Having just been awakened, understanding this may take a few moments though..

This was my point in my posts. If the homeowner has went out with the gun but then realised it was just an auto accident, he should have lowered the gun, but he didn't and we have what we have.

That's not even what it says. It says he drove away after being shot at twice.

No it doesn't.

Outside, the armed homeowner trained his weapon at Smith and yelled at him to cut the engine, according to the affidavit. The sight of a gun pointed at Smith was enough to spook the disoriented driver, who started screaming and stepped on the gas.

"I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I'll fix your fence," Smith said he tried to tell Sanderson, who responded by shooting twice at Smith's truck tires, according to court documents.

Gun pointed, driver steps on gas, homeowner fires at driver. I might agree that it is open to interpretation but there isn't enough for you to completely reverse my interpretation with certainty.