Witness haters--are you happy now? :(

I found this article today in the Huffington post:
*It was a miracle no one was injured.

After telling a group of three Jehovah’s Witnesses to get lost, Centeron, Ark., resident John Baldwin, 35, fired about 19 shots at the group as they were leaving, police said.

Everything was OK when the Jehovah’s Witnesses first arrived at Baldwin’s home on Saturday, according to local NBC affiliate KNWA-TV. But when Baldwin learned the men were Jehovah’s Witnesses, he allegedly told them to “get the [expletive] off my property” and said “Get me my 9” as the men were getting into their car, CBS affiliate KFSM-TV reports.

Police said they found 13 shell casings and a Springfield XDM-9mm handgun in front of Baldwin’s house, according to KFSM-TV. Baldwin was arrested and released on $50,000 bond. He will be charged with felony aggravated assault, the station notes.

Baldwin could be slammed with a $10,000 fine and jailed for six years.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian denomination with about 7.5 million members worldwide. They publish Bibles and Bible literature in nearly 600 languages, and go door to door to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, who they believe is the son of God and not part of the Trinity. *
Satisfied? :mad:

If you fire 13 shots and don’t kill anybody, you should have your license revoked.

Who exactly are you blaming for this?

Yeah, I’m thrilled. Not wanting to be annoyed by traveling proselytizers in my home totally equates to advocating they be shot. Are you a fucking moron?

Well are you a fucking moron, dougie? Because thinking JW’s are really annoying assholes hardly equates to wanting them killed.

Nobody was killed.

I hate people who reach for guns or violence to solve non-violent problems.

I hate people who push their religion on me.

I don’t see that I have to be happy in any way about this story, since no one with my stance is involved. Gun guy should go to jail. JWs should stop going house-to-house out of respect for other people’s lives, not out of fear for their own.

Well, it’s not for fear of their own that they go, it’s for fear of yours.

Romans 10:13,14

Yeah, we’re totally happy now. We’re thrilled. :rolleyes:

Because seriously, not wanting to be disturbed by religious solicitors totally equals wanting them shot at.

I agree with leaf - 13 rounds and he didn’t hit anything? The guy’s a menace.

Besides, trespassing by religious types only merits siccing the dogs on them, not shooting.

OK, I’ll play:

Cat haters–are you happy now? :frowning:

Fish haters–are you happy now? :frowning:

Alternative transportation haters–are you happy now? :frowning:

I feel like the story is leaving something out. Can I really shoot at three people and only get charged with “felony aggravated assault” and do a maximum of six years? That seems kinda light for an attempted triple homicide.

I’m thinking he just fired into the air to scare them off (and because he’s an idiot). Not that that’s OK, but its also a lot different then firing “at the group”.

I don’t get it. What if he intentionally shot in the air, nowhere near them? Would that still be an offence?

Bullets are cheaper than a pit full of lions.

Why on Earth would anyone be “happy” about this? That statement makes no sense.

I’ll echo the question that has been asked: Are you a fucking moron, dougie?

The only thing better would have been if he had chased them off half naked with a sword.

[/Forrest Gump voice/] Being a Jehovah’s Witness must be hard. You might even get shot in the buttocks. [Forrest Gump voice/]

Better: Chased them off fully naked, with his erect penis.

Most states have laws against firing into the air (falling bullets can and do kill people). It doesn’t sound like that’s what he’s being charged with, though.

There are other cases where people get charged with aggravated assault for “warning shots” though. I think that’s probably what’s happening here.

Absolutely. The man was charged with assault which is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. “Assault” doesn’t require any actual bodily harm to have happened, just that the possibility be credible.