Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/06/2014 10:36:11 AM PDT by Cheerio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Cheerio

If he shot to kill he would proabably have gotten half the time...


2 posted on 10/06/2014 10:38:01 AM PDT by GraceG (Protect the Border from Illegal Aliens, Don't Protect Illegal Alien Boarders...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

Could the guy get a governor’s pardon?


3 posted on 10/06/2014 10:38:49 AM PDT by married21 ( As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

Too bad he didn’t fire a shotgun. He could have gotten Joe Biden to testify for the defence.


4 posted on 10/06/2014 10:40:42 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

5 posted on 10/06/2014 10:46:56 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

I did some checking about, and this story is even worse than it appears. First, the incident happened back in 2008, and Mr. Wollard has been serving prison time for the past six years. Second, the BS railroading this guy is getting from the system is unimaginable. Believe it or not, even Change.org is going to bat for this guy.

https://www.change.org/p/commute-the-20-year-mandatory-minimum-sentence-for-a-father-protecting-his-family

The Highlights:

-Several hours prior to Wollard firing a single shot into his own living room floor as a warning, the daughter’s boyfriend had attacked him - viciously enough to rip out the stitches from a recent surgery Wollard had have - simple because Wollard tried to keep the boyfriend from dragging his daughter off.

-When Wollard fired the shot, the boyfriend had been punching holes into the living room wall, and advanced on Wollard with clenched fists.

-The police arrested Wollard a month later when the boyfriend, again trying to forcibly remove the daughter from the house, called the cops on Wollard. Wollard did not brandish a weapon at this time, but put his arms around his daughter to prevent her from being taken off.

-Wollard had unsuccessfully tried several times to get a restraining order against the boyfriend, who would take the daughter out for days at a time.

-Wollard declined a plea deal for probation, on the grounds he felt he acted in self-defense. (Which he DID, if you ask me!)

-Even the judge and one of the police officers involved with the case have said the “mandatory minimum” sentence is grossly excessive.


7 posted on 10/06/2014 11:08:59 AM PDT by DemforBush (A Repo Man is always intense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio
The law currently authorizes use of deadly force only if one fears for his life. A warning shot is a demonstration that the shooter is not in such a fear. Firearms are not legally allowed to be used for intimidation, for better or for worse. Such use is punished harsher than shooting to kill.
10 posted on 10/06/2014 11:18:57 AM PDT by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

“I missed and he left. I’m pretty shaken about the whole thing.

How do I file a restraining order”...my response...


12 posted on 10/06/2014 11:42:41 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

Wow, 20 years for firing a warning shot. I remember 1978 when Dan White murdered the San Francisco mayor and a supervisor. He used a “twinkie” defense of being nuts, and got 7 years of which he only served 5 years. It was really a premeditated murder, as evidence came out later he had planned to kill 2 others as well. But he only got 7 years for a double murder and served 5. This poor man is threatened with 20 years for a warning shot! Stupid legal system.


13 posted on 10/06/2014 12:15:38 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

“California quietly nixes a mandatory 90-day jail term for those under the influence of narcotics”

So these strict laws that came about because of the war on drugs are now giving an exemption to people on drugs in CA?


14 posted on 10/06/2014 12:16:46 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

Governor Scott (or Governor Crist, God forbid) should pardon this guy.


15 posted on 10/06/2014 12:19:15 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

My tagline: The cure has become worse than the disease. Support an end to the WOD now.


16 posted on 10/06/2014 12:59:22 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The cure has become worse than the disease. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio
This is such nonsense. Now the family of the man will likely need to go on some kind of welfare while we keep this guy behind bars for about another $200K a year at taxpayer expense.

I'm all for locking criminals up who pose a danger to society but firing a warning shot at a daughter's crazy boyfriend is not criminal. Stupid perhaps, but not criminal.

I had warning shots fired at me once. I was about 12 years old and visiting with relatives in Alabama. We took a shortcut through somebody's watermelon patch and this old redneck in bib overalls comes out on his front porch and shoots a couple rounds over our heads. He thought we were stealing his watermelon or maybe he just had too much moonshine. Anyway, we shouldn't have been on his property and we beat a hasty path back to the blacktop. Back in those days, you didn't even call the cops for nonsense like that. Plus, if we did call the cops, we'd probably be taken in ourselves for trespassing.

17 posted on 10/06/2014 1:13:01 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio

Was it a warning shot, or really crappy aim?


19 posted on 10/06/2014 2:14:15 PM PDT by Petruchio (Democrats are like Slinkies... Not good for anything, but it's fun pushing 'em down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cheerio
But supporters argue that the threat of harsh sentences enables prosecutors to persuade suspects to plea bargain rather than enter costly, time-consuming trials.

I have a huge problem with this quote. Translated, it says that prosecutors are given arbitrary powers to hold out for disproportionate and cruel sentences in the name of administrative convenience.

The assumption of course, is that the prosecutor wielding his power only cares about expeditious justice, and isn't corrupted by the power. Like that Nifong guy was in the Duke lacrosse players' case. /S

20 posted on 10/06/2014 2:17:19 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson