Posted on 02/16/2007 8:56:33 AM PST by CedarDave
He lived in a small NM town for 55 years without a criminal record. That in itself may be a record.
These are just the kind of responses I expect from people who accept everything the media claims or that some DAs place in their Information when they're under local political pressure.
Who are the witnesses? The shooter and the other girls who have good reason to lie. I disregard the statements of the co-hoodlums who were further away. We also haven't heard if tox screens were done on the deceased and, if so, what the results were. The DA says the shooter says #2 begged for her life and claims he said he finished her off. Until I hear a taped interview in which he makes that statement and hear the context in which it was made, it doesn't cut much sway with me. I'm retired from thirty-two years in law enforcement, including a good number spent in robbery-homicide, and I know what the local media do to details and facts. One would think y'all would have figured this out in view of the Duke lacrosse case, but apparently that's not the case. If the shooter shot her in the head with malice aforethought, then let him swing, but until that's demonstrated by presentation of the evidence I'm on the side of any homeowner defending his or her life and property, even if it's a recluse with unproved mental issues that the town likes to harass and ridicule.
The bottom line is that if the girls had been minding their own business and stayed away from him, stayed off his property, and not tried to break in through his window in the middle of the night, they'd be alive and all would be well. One has to wonder what all those girls were up to at that location at that hour. At least two of them decided to commit a felony. When you look for trouble, it often finds you.
The fact that this man's house was burned down two days after the event tells me these young women were not exactly well-reared girls from nice families. There appears to be a gang mentality operating here that needs to be further examined. The defendant has the Public Defender for counsel which puts him at a great disadvantage, so I doubt that many important facts will ever be discovered and brought out.
Agreed. He lived quietly and peacefully, apparently as a bit of a recluse, I gather. He didn't feloniously break into people's homes in the dead of night when he was a 20 year-old.
Perhaps he's not one of these overly-tolerant multi-cultural types who embraces the claimed rights of others to abuse him, damage and steal his property, and frighten the hell out of him in the middle of the night from a dead sleep. I think people somehow think he was supposed to clairvoyantly know who was breaking in and for some reason assume he should think they were doing it for his benefit. I don't buy the bathroom story at all and, even if it was true, what did these women think somebody in the house was going to think when they broke in his window at 3 am?
These people buying the media stories are only hearing from the prosecution, and they're already hooked into "homicidal retard", yet they have no idea if he's retarded or not. Retarded people tend to not sense danger when they should, so he may just be anti-social. Considering how the people of that town behave, he may be the most intelligent person living there if he's been deliberately avoiding contact with them. Further, people defending themselves and their property are not "retarded" for doing so. "Homicidal retards" don't wait until they're 55 years old to start acting out, that's for sure.
Blah blah blah.
Every DA in America is now a Nifong until proven innocent, apparently.
Fact: the women were unarmed.
Fact: Page shot one woman in the gut.
Fact: after she fell to the ground, he shot her in the head.
Fact: a girl with her intestines blown out through her back is a threat to no one.
Spin all you like, and pretend that NM is NC if it suits you, but you cannot wriggle out of that one.
Page will die in a prison or in the laughing academy.
If people see a clear-eyed ananlysis of this as excuse making then that's their emotional problem. There are definitely some things here that don't square up in favor of the character of the victims. Like his house being burned to the ground less than 24 hours after the trespass/shooting incident. Some assume revenge which is a reasonable explanation. But so is evidence destruction.
Just being a retard makes his chances of never having a run in with the law in a small town in 55 years rather unlikely. If he had a propensity towards violence the odds approach absurd. Maybe that explanation doesn't cut it.
It sounds like he did wrong when he shot to kill the woman who was already down. At 3dark thirty in the morning. The question remains as to why he did.
That argument has already been debunked.
Every DA in America is now a Nifong until proven innocent, apparently.
That argument doesn't address anything of substance.
Fact: the women were unarmed.
That fact is not in evidence.
Fact: Page shot one woman in the gut.
That fact means nothing. All self defense classes teach 'shoot for center mass.' In the pitch dark of 3:AM he could have been aiming for the head in the first place.
Fact: after she fell to the ground, he shot her in the head.
That's not a fact that's what has been reported. Was she getting up? Was she shouting threats? Were her other three friends shouting threats? Was she still on her feet? Did the paper get it wrong? So far there's no testimony under oath and no one-on-one interview just the criminal complaint filed by ... who?
Fact: a girl with her intestines blown out through her back is a threat to no one.
Extremely unlikely with a shot from a .410.
Page will die in a prison or in the laughing academy.
What? Got this weeks lottery picks? LOL
Some people are just too dumb to talk to.
That other poster's remark about blah blah blah and Nifong was enough to completely turn me off to this entire subject. He or she was too stupid to understand that the point is that it should no longer be a surprise even to those not familiar with the system that DAs can and do tailor their complaints (which include declarations as to untested evidence, which is nothing more than an allegation) to pacify local political pressure. They also don't understand that the very purpose of a trial is to test the evidence presented by the DA and thatwhat he or she says coming out of the gate is not always accurate. When it's inaccurate, the first question is was it a deliberate error or honest error? If deliberate, what was the purpose? In what would be a very high-profile case for this town/county, it's wise to not jump on the first information to come out, especially when it's reported by the AP.
One would think that after Nifong, Ronnie Earle, the border patrol agents cases, Scooter Libby, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other heavily publicized cases they would learn that DAs and U.S. attorneys are quite capable of misleading, or even lying or, worse yet, downright fabricating statements and other evidence, but some people are just too stupid for their own good and aren't worth the time of day it takes to explain anything to them.
But it was nice to discuss the case with you.
What slows my temptation to jump to conclusions is a good deal of time visiting and living in NM. Specifically, as pertinent to this story, seeing how young women who are out drinking in groups act. An easy thing to observe if you drive the streets of Albuquerque at night which I did regularly for a while coming and going to a trade school. Suffice it to say that 'ladylike,' 'soft spoken' and 'harmless' are not adjectives that would immediately come to mind.
Unfortunately with a public defender at his side possible mitigating circumstances may never come to light.
It did seem odd to me that he lived there all his 55 years yet friends of the women say "no one knew anyone lived there." And then it was said that he was known as slow or odd or whatever. Which is it? Was he so reclusive in this very small town that people didn't even know where he lived? Or was he a local "character" who generated myths and rumors?
It's hard to know what the local view of him was, but clearly that view entailed an impression that he's an easy target inasmuch as young women were breaking in and then their family members or friends decided to burn his house down. I also don't believe they didn't know he or someone lived there.
If he owns a vehicle parked there or had any lights on, or has had in the past since the teens and young adults hang out there frequently (probably making a huge mess with beer cans and God knows what else), it's hard for me to buy the claim they thought the place was vacant. And even if that's true, it's still somebody's private property whether it was occupied at the moment or not. Lack of occupancy doesn't give them any more right to break in than if it was unoccupied. The apparent fact that the other young women make this statement as though vacancy somehow makes it okay to break in just tells me more about their mentality and upbringing than it does about anything related to the incident itself. In other words, had they not been shot and killed and instead had been apprehended, the excuse that they thought it was vacant would certainly not mitigate a break-in. Most burglars and vandals prefer unoccupied premises to do their dirty work, so it's a ridiculous excuse.
I'm familiar with the types of girls that make up these gangs that hang out all night, such as those you mentioned. More often than not they're violent, foul-mouthed thugs.
"Lack of occupancy doesn't give them any more right to break in than if it was unoccupied." -- I should have written "....occupied."
Read the article
The low life POS shot one girl through the window and then went out and shot the other kid in the stomach and head.
Time to fire old sparky for this guy
Unlike you, I would like to hear why he did that, if in fact that's even what he did. AP is notorious for telling one side of something. Besides that, we've heard nothing from the defense. Until I know what really happened, in detail, unlike you I am not ready to send an otherwise peaceful man whose home was under attack to the electric chair, as you say should happen NOW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.