Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

157 posts in this topic

Posted

A Williston Park man who police said shot his girlfriend in the back with a rifle Monday after a heated argument over the television show "The Walking Dead" told authorities he was annoyed that she came to his apartment to smooth things over.

In a statement to police, Jared M. Gurman, 26, said he told his girlfriend, Jessica Gelderman, 27, also of Williston Park, to leave.

"Jess walked into the room and I fired the gun once and hit her," Gurman said. "She said, 'Oh my God. What did you do?' "

A single round from a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle pierced Gelderman's lung and diaphragm, and shattered her ribs, said Nassau Det. Lt. Raymond Cote, commander of the Third Squad.

Newsday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well that guy has lost his right to own firearms for life. Good thing she lived, and hope he gets some serious jailtime for attempted murder. I've heard rumors that a lot of times a .22 is more lethal against an un-protected soft target than larger rounds because instead of just piercing it bounces around and fragments and causes tons of internal damage.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Governor, the early years?

Seriously though, He shot her in the back as she was walking up the stairs. There is no way in hell that can be deemed "accidental" as this guy's lawyer is trying to do. Most likely he will get off the charges due to a "crime of passion" type of argument...which is total BS. I hope he's found guilty.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well that guy has lost his right to own firearms for life. Good thing she lived, and hope he gets some serious jailtime for attempted murder. I've heard rumors that a lot of times a .22 is more lethal against an un-protected soft target than larger rounds because instead of just piercing it bounces around and fragments and causes tons of internal damage.

This. God, what a complete idiot with no perspective whatsoever. Over a f**ing TV show to boot?? Unreal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well that guy has lost his right to own firearms for life. Good thing she lived, and hope he gets some serious jailtime for attempted murder. I've heard rumors that a lot of times a .22 is more lethal against an un-protected soft target than larger rounds because instead of just piercing it bounces around and fragments and causes tons of internal damage.

technically, he asked her to leave and she didnt ... he then went and got the gun and shot her... he was within his rights to do so, regardless of how the situation came about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

technically, he asked her to leave and she didnt ... he then went and got the gun and shot her... he was within his rights to do so, regardless of how the situation came about.

Seriously?? Why would he be "within his rights"? What a load of bull****, so you are visiting someone or a husband and wife are having an argument, and because the one disagrees with the other, it's OK to just shoot the other person? Really dude, people like you should get a grip and think for 30 seconds before making ludicrous statements like the one you just posted!

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

technically, he asked her to leave and she didnt ... he then went and got the gun and shot her... he was within his rights to do so, regardless of how the situation came about.

:o

The **** is wrong with you??

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Seriously?? Why would he be "within his rights"? What a load of bull****, so you are visiting someone or a husband and wife are having an argument, and because the one disagrees with the other, it's OK to just shoot the other person? Really dude, people like you should get a grip and think for 30 seconds before making ludicrous statements like the one you just posted!

:o

The **** is wrong with you??

He may be technically correct....

(Varys from state to state) If someone envades your private property and you ask them to leave and they refuse, you have a right to shoot them. Now, it depends on state to state if you can "just do it" (sorry Nike) or if you can only do it if they pose a threat to you.

He might just get away with this one :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He may be technically correct....

(Varys from state to state) If someone envades your private property and you ask them to leave and they refuse, you have a right to shoot them. Now, it depends on state to state if you can "just do it" (sorry Nike) or if you can only do it if they pose a threat to you.

He might just get away with this one :(

There has to be some sort of "imminent danger" or self defense stipulation. You can't just shoot someone without serious provocation. If you can, then that is just outright insane.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh man..there is never a shortage of crazies in the news. The Walking Dead television series is OK...it's nothing compared to the comic book series though. The comic book series is....dark.....

There has to be some sort of "imminent danger" or self defense stipulation. You can't just shoot someone without serious provocation. If you can, then that is just outright insane.

No, you can't. I know that in some states you can shoot trespassers (some states w/ warning, others w/o warning). But since this was his girlfriend we are talking about it, it can be assumed that she had been invited onto the property or something like that. More so if she had a key to his apartment. I've never heard that you can shoot a guest if you ask them to leave and they refuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

technically, he asked her to leave and she didnt ... he then went and got the gun and shot her... he was within his rights to do so, regardless of how the situation came about.

Not unless his life came under threat. Reasonable people don't pick up a rifle and shoot someone that isn't harming them, or providing a threat, they call the police and let them do their job.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Like Shadrack said: Some states require there to be a threat others you can warn and if they don't leave (irrelevant if she/he has a key, if its YOUR property) once you have warned them, you can shoot them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe the guy thought she was turning.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't care what the laws say, if you ask someone you're acquainted with to leave your house and they don't, it's all kinds of wrong to shoot them unless you fear that you or someone else are in imminent danger. If she won't leave, call the police, physically remove her, I don't really care, but don't hurt her, and certainly don't shoot her in the back! According to the article, this guy even had the rifle out and loaded when his girlfriend showed up. He needs to go away for a long time.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

....told authorities he was annoyed that she came to his apartment to smooth things over.

Heavens forbid that people try to smooth things over.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well that guy has lost his right to own firearms for life.

Right, because that's what's most important here. :rolleyes: God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^ It is considered an important right here in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right, because that's what's most important here. :rolleyes: God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

He will now. He used a .22 and if we followed U.K standards he still could of got his hands on a .22 and did the same thing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right, because that's what's most important here. :rolleyes: God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

The replies here are quite mild by comparison, in the other thread about the guy that executed the burglars a lot of the gun nuts were defending him. Rationality and US gun culture aren't particularly good bedfellows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The replies here are quite mild by comparison, in the other thread about the guy that executed the burglars a lot of the gun nuts were defending him. Rationality and US gun culture aren't particularly good bedfellows.

Who was defending him, Why do you insist in insulting people that own firearms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm sorry, but I busted out laughing at the line from the defense attorney: "the gun accidently went off". Yeah, just like it accidently ended up in his hands, accidently loaded and accidently aimed at her.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

dont think hes a very good call of duty player with that type of aim!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

technically, he asked her to leave and she didnt ... he then went and got the gun and shot her... he was within his rights to do so, regardless of how the situation came about.

I'm not sure where you're from where it's OK to shoot someone in the back just because they didn't leave right away, but it's not Earth.

He may be technically correct....

(Varys from state to state) If someone envades your private property and you ask them to leave and they refuse, you have a right to shoot them. Now, it depends on state to state if you can "just do it" (sorry Nike) or if you can only do it if they pose a threat to you.

He might just get away with this one :(

The Castle Doctrine, right? That's only if you're in fear of your life. Otherwise you could just shoot door salesmen etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right, because that's what's most important here. :rolleyes: God forbid he lose his rights to own a firearm!

I was making a general statement about the situation, your comment is not appreciated. Gun ownership is a paramount right of every human being in today's world, much like the ability to carry and wield a sword in the days before guns were mass produced. Without the right to arm yourself, you are incapable of "really" defending yourself against tyranny in government, much less anything else. Try fighting a bobcat off your chickens with a machete, I dare you, you'll find out real quick a 5.56 round is much faster and safer. I mean really, if the government of the UK decided to enforce a curfew, confiscate privately owned land, and allow the sheriff of every town to rape one female citizen of his choosing every night, under the protection of armed guards, what could you "really" do since the majority of you are not allowed to own a gun? You could organize a little resistance, maybe kill a couple people when they weren't looking, but unless foreign governments started sending stuff to you, you would be totally helpless. What do you think happens to people without guns when they try to stand up to people with guns? Read your history man (generic, no gender specific term, in case you are a woman), this is a very important right that he just forfeited by making a very stupid and potentially lethal decision.

On the castle doctrine, you have to be in fear for your life, I'm fairly certain of that. There's all kinds of things you can do to remove somebody from your property before shooting them becomes a reasonable response. If the bullet struck her in the back, she obviously wasn't facing or attacking him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^ Most of the population in the UK don't WANT to own guns. Our society is, generally, much safer without them thanks.

As for your hyperbole about defending yourself from your government; it's just that. Hyperbole. If such a thing could happen, it already would have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.