| Author | Post |
|---|
gunsfreak4791
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Kearns, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 502 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 07:54 am |
|
| I am a big fan of super dell. I enjoy his antics and voted for him while OC'ing at the polls
|
gunsfreak4791
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Kearns, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 502 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 07:54 am |
|
| I am a big fan of super dell. I enjoy his antics and voted for him while OC'ing at the polls
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:30 am |
|
killswitch1982 wrote: He makes Open/Concealed carry advocates look bad. All this negative publicity because of him comes back on US because those who are ignorant think we are ALL like this!
Again, to be fair to Mr. Schanze, the only publicity that gun owners get is usually of the negative variety. You can open up the paper on a given day, and read about a toilet being shot, or a chair at Olive Garden being shot, or a negligent discharge at the gun show.
...oh wait. That last one didn't make the news because he was a cop. My bad. 
The fact remains... If average joe does something dumb with a firearm, it will probably make the news. If average joe prevents a car jacking with a firearm, the public may never know. If Dell Schanze looks at a cop wrong, WERE GOING TO KNOW ABOUT IT!!!
killswitch1982 wrote:I had called him out on it once, on YouTube I think, about his speeding through a neighborhood and he actually said to me " we all speed. You speed, I speed we all do it!" I informed him that I didn't since it's the LAW not to and also informed him most people don't DOUBLE the speed limit on a residential street.
 BULLSCHNIT! I don't care who you are, if you have ever driven a car for more than a day, you can't tell me that you never drifted at least one mile per hour over the speed limit! Just because you've never been caught doing it, doesn't make it any less unlawful.
You are also a concealed carrier. I am willing to bet a shiny new dime that you have also (maybe unknowingly) broken a gun law or two! In fact, I bet most of us have.
|
2nd Amendment
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | Utah USA |
| Posts: | 27 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:50 am |
|
SGT Jensen wrote: 2nd Amendment wrote:This guy is a complete nut case. I personally do not like Dell Schanze he needs to tone it down just a little bit.
I see this statement a lot. Have you ever met him? Do you know him personally? 
No I have never personally met the guy and frankly I do not care to. I once saw him drive like a complete idiot in a hummer he once owned years back but thats about it. I agree with some peoples comments that Dell always plays the victim in his cases poor me and everyone is after me he sounds like a 10 year old boy. This guy does drive like a maniac and it has been proven before. So case and point he needs to learn his lesson but that most likely will never happen in his mind. Because he is always the poor victim. Grow up and accept responsibility .
|
2nd Amendment
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | Utah USA |
| Posts: | 27 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:54 am |
|
also DON'T CARRY A CONCEALED GUN IF YOUR LICENSE IS EXPIRED THAT IS A CRIMINAL ACT DUHHHHHHHHHHH. Oh but wait it is ok for Dell to do it in his mind he is the victim in everything.
|
2nd Amendment
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | Utah USA |
| Posts: | 27 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:56 am |
|
killswitch1982 wrote: I agree Charles, but here in lies the crux of dear ol' Dale: he is a self-centered, egocentric stooge. He only cares about himself. If he was concerned for others he would not have been speeding through a neighborhood with kids, he would not have been weaving in and out of traffic, he would by have falsely claimed the officer was once in a relationship with him and said "you know I'm hot" to her IN A COURT ROOM, because all he thinks about is himself.
If he cared about anyone else but himself then he wouldn't be playing the role of a victim. He would man-up and take responsability for his douchebaggery. Not " Oh KSL is biased! They're out to get me! The police are out to get me! It's not MY fault that I was speeding through a neighborhood with kids/driving wrecklessly/carrying with an expired permit/crashed every car, motorcycle, and ultra-light aircraft I've ever owned! I'm a victim!"
Frankly I hope he is found guilty and given the strictest punishment available for his actions. Maybe then he will finally learn not to be a tool.
AGREED 100%
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 06:17 pm |
|
packingmama wrote: SGT Jensen wrote: I think we can all agree that Dell is a media whore, but it seems to work for him. And in case you have not noticed, the media thrives on his types. How many people every month are pulled over, and charged with carrying a concealed weapon, and we never hear about it?
He is not the only person in Utah that is charged with weapons violations, but the media will jump all over it because of who he is. And it will not stop with guns either. You can bet that if he doesn't mow his lawn with enough frequency, it will probably be in the news.
As far as swerving back and forth in your lane goes, how many of us have done that on purpose? I know that I have. I will even throw my wife under the bus and say she has done it too. The only crime that even makes this newsworthy is the fact that his firearm was in a fannypack. 
At least he lives life to the fullest. All of you that dislike the man and everything he does... have you ever done anything wrong in your life? Have you ever broken the law? Have you ever been guilty about something where no one found out, etc. catch my drift? Like Kev said...... I bet if he didn't mow his lawn with enough frequency, it would probably be in the news.
Or have you ever been ACCUSED of doing anything wrong in your life? Have you ever been accused of breaking the law?
I will add one of my own.... Has someone else ever thought that THEIR way was the better way that something should have been done when there was NOTHING ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL about the way that it was done in the first place.
|
combatcarry
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 202 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 06:39 am |
|
2 Ammendment....
Ten years ago I might have had your opinion. Then a group of dirty UHP cops pulled me over for not breaking a SINGLE law. They made up a story that my wife threw a bag of marijuanna out the car... They tore our car apart... Threatened to strip search my wife on the side of a rural highway... They accused my wife of simply being my mistress fluezy.... etc. etc....... I filed a formal complaint with the UHP sargent and he admitted, "They might need some additional training." 
Two of my best friends are honest law enforcement officers. However... I trust Dell more than 90% of the cops on our Utah highways... I'm just sayin... Dell is INNOCENT until proven guilty no matter his antics, or attitude.Last edited on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 06:41 am by combatcarry
|
Count
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 08:15 pm |
|
| NEW SUPREME COURT RULING CAME OUT THREE DAYS AGO REFERENCE SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST. IT USED TO BE THAT SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST FOR ANY OFFENSE INCLUDING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION (IF STATE LAW ALLOWS ARREST FOR TRAFFIC OFFENSE LIKE IN TEXAS) THE ENTIRE INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE EXCEPT THE TRUNK WAS O.K. TO BE SEARCHED. THE NEW RULING STATES THAT OFFICERS CANNOT SEARCH UNLESS THE ARRESTEE IS NOT SECURED AND COULD REACH AND DESTROY THE EVIDENCE OR WHAT OFFICERS ARE SEARCHING FOR IS RELATED TO THE OFFENSE OFFICERS ARE ARRESTING YOU FOR AND HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THERE MAY BE FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE OFFENSE OF ARREST. SO THE CAR COULDN'T BE SEARCHED TO LOOK FOR CONTRABAND OR EVEN GUNS FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION OR OTHER NON-DOPE OR GUN RELATED CHARGES. THE CASE IS GANT VS ARIZONA. DISSENTING WERE JUSTICES ALITO, ROBERTS, BREYER AND KENNEDY. LONG HELD CASE LAW ALLOWED SEARCH WITHIN THE AREA THAT COULD HAVE BEEN REACHED PRIOR TO ARREST. THE NEW CASE LAW TOOK THAT AWAY SO IT CAN ONLY BE SEARCHED IF THE ARRESTEE COULD STILL ACCESS THE AREA TO DESTROY EVIDENCE OR GET ACCESS TO WEAPONS. Last edited on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 08:56 pm by Count
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 12:32 am |
|
YOU DON'T NEED TO YELL!!!
The case is Arizona v. Gant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
Arizona v. Gant was a 2009 appeal in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by the arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens who was joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Souter. Justice Alito wrote a dissent joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Breyer (in part). Justice Breyer also wrote a separate dissent.
Last edited on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 12:41 am by rpyne
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 02:16 am |
|
rpyne wrote: YOU DON'T NEED TO YELL!!!
The case is Arizona v. Gant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
Arizona v. Gant was a 2009 appeal in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by the arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens who was joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Souter. Justice Alito wrote a dissent joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Breyer (in part). Justice Breyer also wrote a separate dissent.
Maybe I'm just dumb, but I can't figure out how, once the arrestee is in handcuffs, he can cause any harm to the officers or evidence.
Now, I can see searching him. But I can't see searching a living room. Just sit him in the hallway, or a police car. Ditto for searching his car after he is arrested.
Can somebody fill in the blank for me.
|
Count
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 05:10 pm |
|
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf
That link is straight from the Supreme Court. Don't forget that police still have the obligation to "inventory" your vehicle if they tow it incident to arrest for liability reasons (at least here in Texas) That is not a search but it is a search..... The only reason I posted that link because it is a win for the Fourth Amendment advocates and a setback for police. Two great Conservatives were for it: Scalia and Thomas. The other two great minds were dissenting: Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 718 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 04:01 am |
|
SGT Jensen wrote:
BULLSCHNIT! I don't care who you are, if you have ever driven a car for more than a day, you can't tell me that you never drifted at least one mile per hour over the speed limit! Just because you've never been caught doing it, doesn't make it any less unlawful.
You are also a concealed carrier. I am willing to bet a shiny new dime that you have also (maybe unknowingly) broken a gun law or two! In fact, I bet most of us have.
Sgt. Jensen, this is the kind of moral relativism and justification that has led our once great society to the brink of self-destruction.
The difference between unintentionally cracking the speed limit or missing a change in speed limits and doing nearly double the posted limit in a residential neighborhood is like the difference between a couple of school kids throwing a few punches and a couple of a gang bangers doing a drive by. Despite idiotic "zero-tolerance" (aka zero-intelligence) policies among the current crop of teacher union members that treats both of my latter examples as the same, there is simply no comparison between the two.
Even going substantially over the posted limit on a freeway or rural highway cannot compare to (nearly?) doubling the posted limit in a residential area.
A person hit by a car traveling at 25 mph has about an 80% chance of survival. Plus, at 25 mph, the odds of hitting someone go way down. At 35 to 40 mph, the odds of a pedestrian surviving a hit from a car drop to about 20%. I'd guess less than 10% by the time the car is approaching 50mph.
To grossly exceed the speed limit in a residential neighborhood is criminal. It demonstrates a complete disregard to the life, safety, and comfort of one's fellow citizens.
That is significantly different than an honest mistake in exceeding the limit by a tiny amount, or honestly missing a speed limit sigh, or even speeding/maintaining flow of traffic on a limited access freeway or rural highway where kids do not routinely walk, play, ride bikes, chase balls into the road, etc.
I trust I need not be so verbose as to belabor the obvious parallel to your example of a peaceful, inadvertent, perhaps even fully unknown technical violation of gun laws. What Schanze did as he raced through that neighborhood in Draper is much closer to a negligent discharge from deliberately plahing with a loaded gun in public than it is to unknowningly stepping into a National Park while armed or some similar technical, non-violent, violation of gun laws.
You may want to revisit the difference between malum in se, and malum prohibitum. Most gun laws fall into the latter category. Most of our traffic laws--especially in areas with high numbers of pedestrian and children present--are merely formalizations and codifications of the former.
I've got no issue if you or anyone else wants to defend Schanze as a good, but misunderstood guy based on your personal friendship with him. But please do not attemt to mount that defense on some kind of terribly misguided "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" argument.
In my most stupid, reckless, motorcycle and muscle car youth I NEVER pulled any stunt even half way close to what Schanze plead guilty to in driving through that neighborhood. If the guy has two functioning brain cells and any degree of faith whatsoever he would thank his God every day that some little kid didn't run in front of his car while he was driving that way in that neighborhood.
Charles
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 06:42 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote:
Most of our traffic laws--especially in areas with high numbers of pedestrian and children present--are merely formalizations and codifications of the former.
Or that's the idea, at any rate.  Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 06:42 am by marshaul
|
ProtectedBy9mm
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
So, he just GETS off?
Fourth District Court Judge Christine Johnson ruled that Dell Schanze can't be prosecuted for having a loaded gun inside his car because of a recent change in state law that allows it without a special license.
Didn't that law come into effect AFTER his charges?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6884927
Is it just me or has Utah been letting loose cannon CFPers run a muck lately? First the Murry guy shooting into the air, now this dude...
I SWEAR the MOMENT i inadvertently break a gun law, they will throw away the key..these guys get a freakin' medallion and publicity.
Wow.
Last edited on Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:38 pm by ProtectedBy9mm
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:38 pm |
|
Probably that combined with a lack of evidence. His word against the cop.
I didn't read anywhere that a firearm was siezed in his traffic stop. No evidence, no crime.
|
MudPounder
Banned
| Joined: | Sun Jun 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:39 pm |
|
ProtectedBy9mm wrote: So, he just GETS off?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6884927
My opininon has been pursuaded by the media. However in light of the recent changes in gun law it may be the best choice for justice sake to dismiss this charge.
It would not seem fair to be convicted of an offense that no longer was a violation of the law. There are no real vicitms in this case so why not dismiss the violation?
|
ProtectedBy9mm
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:40 pm |
|
pussypounder wrote: ProtectedBy9mm wrote: So, he just GETS off?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6884927
My opininon has been pursuaded by the media. However in light of the recent changes in gun law it may be the best choice for justice sake to dismiss this charge.
It would not seem fair to be convicted of an offense that no longer was a violation of the law. There are no real vicitms in this case so why not dismiss the violation?
Is that why they won't legalize marijuana?
They are going to HAVE to free millions of incarcerated offenders of possession?
...i swear i am the only one held accountable for my actions.
Last edited on Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:41 pm by ProtectedBy9mm
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:52 pm |
|
utbagpiper wrote:
Sgt. Jensen, this is the kind of moral relativism and justification that has led our once great society to the brink of self-destruction.
The difference between unintentionally cracking the speed limit or missing a change in speed limits and doing nearly double the posted limit in a residential neighborhood is like the difference between a couple of school kids throwing a few punches and a couple of a gang bangers doing a drive by. Despite idiotic "zero-tolerance" (aka zero-intelligence) policies among the current crop of teacher union members that treats both of my latter examples as the same, there is simply no comparison between the two.
Even going substantially over the posted limit on a freeway or rural highway cannot compare to (nearly?) doubling the posted limit in a residential area.
Wow, not sure how I missed this post. I was simply calling out a comment made by killswitch1982.
killswitch1982 wrote:I had called him out on it once, on YouTube I think, about his speeding through a neighborhood and he actually said to me " we all speed. You speed, I speed we all do it!" I informed him that I didn't since it's the LAW not to and also informed him most people don't DOUBLE the speed limit on a residential street.
I realize that I was comparing apples and oranges, but he made a claim that he "didn't speed".
I could compare this to the federal GFSZA. Cracking the speed limit and possession of a firearm near school property are both crimes, but what are the chances of one being discovered, or even prosecuted for it?
I think Dell is right. "we all speed. You speed, I speed we all do it!" Even I am guilty of recklessly flying through a residential area, although I was not caught. 
But for one to make a claim that he has not ever broken the law is kinda silly.
|
MudPounder
Banned
| Joined: | Sun Jun 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
ProtectedBy9mm wrote: pussypounder wrote: ProtectedBy9mm wrote: So, he just GETS off?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6884927
My opininon has been pursuaded by the media. However in light of the recent changes in gun law it may be the best choice for justice sake to dismiss this charge.
It would not seem fair to be convicted of an offense that no longer was a violation of the law. There are no real vicitms in this case so why not dismiss the violation?
Is that why they won't legalize marijuana?
They are going to HAVE to free millions of incarcerated offenders of possession?
...i swear i am the only one held accountable for my actions.
I can assure you that you are not. Some people manage to skate around alot of things..
Last edited on Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:55 pm by MudPounder
|
Current time is 06:33 am | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
