Blue Byline

A cop's perspective of the news and South Sound matters

A time to shoot (and a time to hold your fire)

Post by Brian O'Neill on April 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm with 32 Comments »
April 8, 2012 7:14 pm

In the last week in Gig Harbor, Puyallup and Bonney Lake, three separate burglary attempts were disrupted by armed homeowners. Since each resident emerged without injury, you would think that here, at least, are excellent examples of the proper use of firearms.

Armed homeowner's sign/ courtesy

You would be right, and you would be wrong.

All three incidents were daytime burglaries, the most common time frame for such crimes. All three were precipitated by using a ploy -homes were targeted when residents failed to respond to knocks on the front door. From this point the details diverge.

In Gig Harbor two burglars fled when the resident appeared at the back door, brandishing a firearm. In Puyallup four burglars awoke the homeowner, a retired cop, who confronted them with his firearm. When one of the burglars allegedly advanced on him with a crowbar, he fired – one suspect later died at the hospital and another, who remains at large, was likely injured. In Bonney Lake the resident opened his front door while armed with a shotgun, surprising the burglar who was busy trying to kick it in. The resident cranked off a round at the burglar as he sped off in a truck.

Let’s tally that up. Three burglaries were foiled by armed residents. Two shootings occurred, with one suspect killed and one potentially injured. All residents emerged uninjured. Question: were each of these incidents legally justifiable examples of the “Castle Doctrine” (wherein residents are legally justified in attacking their intruders)?

That is the issue that prosecutors are considering, at least in regards to the Bonney Lake incident.

It is ironic that, of the two shootings described above, prosecutors are focusing on potential criminal actions of this resident. Unlike the fatal Puyallup shooting, it appears that no one was harmed in Bonney Lake. Some readers responded to this report with an undisguised cynicism, choosing to highlight the fact that the resident in Puyallup was a retired police officer. One reader commented, “it’s okay to shoot someone if your [sic] a cop but not if your [sic] a homeowner” (Trib (4/6).


Charging considerations in these cases have nothing to do with the current or former occupation of the shooter, but have everything to do with the value of human life. When their homes and lives were in jeopardy, these homeowners chose to defend themselves with a gun. While the threat remained, that choice was both legal and righteous. When the threat was gone, i.e. the burglar fled in a vehicle, self defense was no longer on the table.

This contentious issue is a common topic for debate at block watches, community meetings or anytime a citizen is curious enough to approach a police officer at the coffee shop and ask, “If somebody breaks into my house can I just shoot them?”

I have worked on that answer for many years. With the admission that this is not legal advice, here it is (again).

Consider a lethal threat in terms of two factors: possibilities and direction. Legal precedents allow people to consider every threat, whether they are readily observed or reasonably assumed . These include size, age and strength of an adversary, tactical advantages or disadvantages such as lighting or location and the presence of weapons (which include those in the possession of you, your adversary or simply nearby). Direction is a matter of trajectory – the threat is either moving towards you or away from you.

Using this oversimplified explanation, and keeping in mind that we only know what has been reported in the paper, let’s consider the two shooting incidents. The Puyallup victim was facing several alleged suspects, one of whom was advancing on him with a crowbar. Both the real and possibile threats were daunting. The threat trajectory was pointing directly at him. By contrast, the Bonney Lake resident allegedly fired his shotgun at a burglar not close enough to be a threat (since no firearm was mentioned), and the threat trajectory was speeding away from him in a truck.

The suggestion that potential charging decisions were, at least in this case, based on law enforcement ties is only an acknowledgment of bias or stupidity. Still, that’s beside the point.

Ultimately, the decision to use firearms to defend one’s home is a personal decision. If after reading about these homeowners’ traumatic experiences, you are wondering about your ability to act reasonably in a similar situation, then I recommend a healthy amount of training and education before bringing a gun into your home.

Leave a comment Comments → 32
  1. rivitman says:

    The Bonney Lake homeowner was simply resisting an attempt to commit a felony upon his residence, and or himself, and is thus justified. At what point the threat ceased to be one, is in the mind of the victim:

    RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

    A load of buckshot in the tailgate is a good way to discourage criminal do-overs. That’s resistance. In spades.

    Next, Brian says there aren’t vastly different use of force laws for cops.
    I disagree.

    Outside of departmental use of force guidelines, this is what the cops have to work with:

    RCW 9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding

    Now to the training issue. Training is good. Marksmanship is good. Most of it is pretty useless. While encouraging you to do it, understand it’s limitations. Think about the possible scenarios, so if and when they come, you aren’t surprised, and condition your mind to know what you will do.

    An invasion of ones home while YOU are in it implies specifically that the wrongdoer is desperate enough to risk an encounter, and is willing to use violence on you. The only rational action for a victim is violence in response.

    And NEVER take legal advice form the police.

    And last I heard, the Stanwood officer has not been charge with virtually an identical crime as two other incidents that have.

  2. Brian O'Neill says:

    A load of buckshot in the tailgate is not self-defense, it is rage. It is irresponsible to recommend an action that could lead to a criminal prosecution, as it might for the person in the above discussion. If you tone down your prejudice against police, you’ll find that your argument holds more credibility.

    Your response also included a reference to the Revised Code of Washington (which I edited for space with a link). I recommend you give it a good read and, if you are still in denial, consult the prosecutor’s office for clarification. I won’t dispute your advice to “never take legal advice form [sic] the police” I should remind you that cops (who are given extensive training in criminal law) were and will be the first ones to determine the rightness or wrongness in a given situation.

    But don’t take it from me – feel free to call the prosecutor’s office if you’re really curious. They’ll just tell you the same.

  3. rivitman says:

    How do you divine rage Brian? Did you learn the Vulcan mind meld at the academy?

    Or did the good fellow simply remain in control of himself in spite of his fear, and acted to eliminate a threat?

    What’s with the stern warnings of legal doom? Did I recommend such an action? I certainly applaud it, that is without question. Please show me where said anything illegal, as you are prone making vapid, hyped up allegations against gun rights folks, the NRA in particular. The law says he could resist. He resisted. And kept resisting until the threat was eliminated. That threat COULD have turned and attacked at any time. He (the burglar) was already engaged in a highly risky unwise, and illogical act, so why would he not show further absence of wisdom by turning to attack, so lacking in common sense and respect as he was?

    Would a judge agree? I don’t know for sure. Judges can screw up too. But I know this: I wouldn’t convict him of anything. There is NO proof whatsoever that he intended to kill the burglar, which would have been fine by me anyway. And the homeowner, his family, and his property are safe, and the goblin is unlikely to repeat his offense at the same address. The outcome was entirely positive by any measure, except you are somehow offended by the level of force used.

    We have had those discussions before Brian, and but now that it’s citizens using a level of force unpalatable to YOU, instead of the other way around. There is considerable teeth gnashing and, grumbling, and looking down ones nose at the good guy homeowner.

    At best you MIGHT have a case for illegal discharge of a firearm, and that’s it. Good luck with that.

    Should I call the Sno-ho county prosecutor and ask him why the Stanwood officer hasn’t been charged? oh, wait, last I heard, that department has yet to deliver on it’s investigation. WHY?

    Last I heard, the Prosecutor’s office does not dispense legal advice to citizens. Cops yes, victims maybe, but the rest of us? We are on our own, which is the status-quo with crime.

    And why should the law state, as it does, that peace officer can back shoot a fleeing felon (this on appears to be a class C felon), yet the guy who was robbed, cannot?

    And how do you convict someone under RCW 9A.16.040, when his actions were justifiable under RCW 9A.16.050? The only outstanding characteristic is nobody died.

    Maybe since no charges have been filed as yet, the PC PA is having the same debate, and given that burglary is running rampant in the county at the moment, I believe he would have a very hard time finding 12 thinking, rational people that would vote to convict. I have burglar next door, currently serving an shockingly light light sentence for the theft of multiple firearms. That was a gigantic failure of prosecutorial discretion in my opinion.

    You want us to feel sorry for supposedly ‘taking the law into our own hands’. This is not factual. THREE home owners in less than that many days have have been put under a stressful defensive situation, by individuals that CHOSE to gamble their life for trinkets. My guess is that the Bonney lake homeowner was scared to death but had the presence of mind to close the range and engage, saving himself, his family, and his property from not only that invasion, but another try by the same goblin. Deterrence in a pure form.

    Well done, my good fellow. For you see, it’s the burglar, in all instances, that gets to decide whether his is a capitol crime or not. His tendency it to prey on the weak, but he seems increasingly to be running into people of personal strength and will.

    That’s tough beans pal. Good luck on your next break in.

    And all the self righteous talk in the world doesn’t change a thing.

    If you feel it necessary to forward this to the prosecutors office, be my guest. This paper knows where to find me.

    As for prejudice against the police, I have none. Perhaps less than none. For I agree totally with the statute that says a police office can shoot a fleeing felon. Were it stated so clearly for the rest of us, we would be better off. I give cops the benefit of the doubt in every instance save where the is evidence, particularly video evidence that casts their conduct in doubt.

    PCSD east metro frequency is my background noise, and I am astonished every day what the deputies go thorough. I salute them. I don’t salute the rare bad one. But I do hold them accountable, because they are granted powers the rest of us do not have. I Insist they use them responsibly and in good conscience.

    What I have a problem with is public officials, and anti gun groups decrying the idea of people defending themselves, others, and their homes. They are losing, and losing BIG in courts all across the nation, and it’s no shock to the good guys. Getting in a snit at people who defend themselves doesn’t represent them well, and I personally take a dim view of them.

    So the answer to the $64K question, “can I shoot the burglar in my house?” My personal opinion is, he’s not there for the donuts. ELIMINATE the threat, call the cops, shut your mouth, and lawyer up. Then know you did the right thing. IS it going to be hard afterwards? Yep. The weight of government will be upon you. Johnny Law will be sitting on your chest.

    But you will be alive and intact.

  4. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    Well Brian, a buckshot blast to the tailgate, might make it easier for police to find that truck.

    If nobody was hurt or killed, no truck w/suspect, kind of sounds like a lack of physical evidence, other than a kicked in door. If anything I would recommend a verbal warning at most.

  5. dinseattle says:

    Wow, Rivitman, you have issues! The law does say that if someone breaks in your home and threatens to do bodily harm to you or your family, you have a right to defend yourself or your family, including the use of deadly force. But, and it has been around for many years, shooting someone as they are departing, or in the back, is an act of cowardice. That has always been the law of the West, even before the RCW was created. Read up on your history. This is not something newly created. The BL person was in the right until the perp ran away. At that moment in time, he would have been better off to get the license plate and call 911. I don’t know if the BL person should be charged or not, but he definitely should have used common sense. I personally prefer a shotgun so I don’t miss my target.

  6. rivitman says:

    dinseattle. The law says the cops can back shoot fleeing felons. Why is that ok? (it fine by me, it’s a rhetorical question)

    And if you think you can’t miss with a shotgun, get thee some training. It’s a shotgun, not a star wars laser cannon.

    And in the scenario you propound, the threat is made. Merely walking out the door does not imply in any way the retraction of that threat. Neither does walking down the driveway, or hopping in a vehicle. An invader of the sanctity of your home has expressed a willingness to harm you. Legalities aside (and not a mere trifle),you have every natural, god given right to see to it that he doesn’t get the chance to do it to you and yours. Ever.

    26 states have codified this with stand your ground laws. May Washington be #27.

  7. Dave98373 says:

    Brian- I respect your opinion but disagree with you. You assume that homeowners work during the day. Your “legaleze” aside, when it comes to protecting my loved ones in my own home…I will always protect them with my life and my firearms if need be. I would rather be judged by a jury of twelve than be carried be a family of six. In fact, I would rather do a long prison sentence for manslaughter and see my loved ones alive than witness them bring murdered. You may be tolerant of criminals…I am not.

  8. Brian O'Neill says:

    Dave, thanks for your succinct comments.

    I have heard the phrase, “rather be judged by a jury of twelve…” throughout my career, and while I agree with the sentiment, it should not be a reason to simply disregard state law and a reasoned approach to the use of force. Whether we live in a “stand your ground law” state or here in Washington, everyone has a duty to refrain from using deadly force unless they are in imminent danger. Regardless of what some misinformed individuals may think, police don’t labor under any different laws regarding deadly force than anyone else. If anything, we are judged more harshly because our work requires specific knowledge and training in that area.

    No cliche will ever allow someone to shoot a criminal who is simply trying to make their escape.

    To be fair, there is one exception to this “fleeing felon” scenario.

    That exception relates to the shooter’s personal knowledge, at that moment, that the fleeing subject poses an imminent threat to the community. For instance, if the shooter were aware that the fleeing subject was a convicted killer – someone like Maurice Clemmons – then allowing that person to escape might constitute such a threat. Absent that specific knowledge, shooting at a would-be burglar driving away in a truck might be viewed as a vindictive, reckless and illegal action. I would rather not be in the position of explaining my actions to a jury, in any case.

  9. rivitman says:

    Brian, your last post being more reasonable than your first, I can accept it as sound advice, with the caveat that each situation is different, and requires examination on it’s own facts. And like my tendency to give the police the benefit of the doubt, I’m going to do the same for the victim of an occupied residential burglary.

  10. I have been a victim of burglary a few times and the anger and rage I feel is frightening. I have to think things through and talk it out with others. I also know that I am not alone with those feelings. If I had to confront a burglar one of us would be dead and it would be physical because I don’t own a gun. It’s insanity because I am not a violent person.

  11. DevilDog2019 says:

    I like this, and this is what I believe!
    “The Gun Is Civilization” By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    By Maj. L.. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

  12. Freedomforall says:

    I wonder how all of this would have been viewed in Texas!

  13. Brian O'Neill says:

    Generally speaking, the laws covering the use of deadly force do not change from state to state. What does change are prosecutorial guidelines for charging. Undoubtedly, Texas would be less likely to prosecute a homeowner involved in a shooting similar to the Bonney Lake example.

  14. dankuykendall says:

    You cannot shoot if you are not in danger of bodily harm period. I don’t care if you think it is right or not, that is the way it is. Sit inside, let them come on in, then they have at least broke the law and you have some kind of defense. If not, you are probably going to spend alot of money defending yourself even if you get off.

  15. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    dankuy, are you the one who got shot at driving away after kicking in the door of that persons house?

  16. SandHills says:

    Lesson here is if you have a gun don’t wait until home invaders get back to their vehicle to use it.

    Don’t leave the door open for some namby-pamby, anti-gun advocate to cast doubt on the absolute logic and legal right to protect you, your family, and your property by being armed. Those like Mr. O’Neil are those second-guessors in life, slyly trying to muddy the waters on this issue.

    Truth is, it would have been better if every one of these criminals were in a pine box now. It would save the taxpayer on all the costs of a judicial system tilted in their favor, and prison costs IF they were convicted – AND IF CONVICTED, they would only serve a minimal time and be out to commit more crime (now with a graduate degree as a professional criminal – they might move up the ladder and obtain a gun of their own).

    Let the word ring out loud across the land, anyone who is so much of an idiot to go into anyones elses home to commit a crime is a danger to society. For gun owners protecting their lives and property the only good advice is to be trained to aim true – and thereby remove these criminals from the gene pool.

  17. BlaineCGarver says:

    If you shoot someone, call 911 and beg for the ambulance to hurry because someone tried to hurt you and they are now hurt. When the cops show up DON’T SAY ONE DAMN WORD, and call a lawyer. For God’s sake, don’t say your sorry. At this point in your life, LEOs are not your friend as they want to charge someone with a crime.

  18. BlaineCGarver says:

    Oh, and Brian, nice writeup….I agree with you about when self defense ends…unfortunately.

  19. rivitman says:

    I note with interest the story of a state trooper, who yesterday, fired a shot at a fleeing vehicle, after the driver of same ran over the troopers foot.

    I support the trooper fully in this action. The wrongdoer was no less dangerous because he was retreating. As he was a felon in flight, the trooper was justified under state law, which makes special exceptions for peace officers.

    But if you or I did the same thing, we might be facing charges.

    As granny used to say, “right it always right, and wrong is always wrong”.

    Whether you wear a badge or not granny.

    We have a law that somehow makes a distinction that a burglar, once across the threshold of the exit door is somehow not a danger anymore.
    I would submit, that the immediate danger has been eliminated when the threat is out of pistol range.

    There is at least one State trooper that thinks so too.

  20. One of the few times I’d say this, but brian is 100% correct. Massad Ayoob covers this topic extensively during his courses and I highly recommend armed citizens become more familiar with the law than listening to forum lawyers and mall ninjas. When you’re sitting in front of a jury, that’s not the time to learn what constitutes justifiable homicide.

  21. All I have to say is. If the Pierce County prosecuter starts prosecuting homeowners for defending themselves. Ill be the 1st to sign a petition to get him out of office. Once you come onto any property with criminal intent & a confrontation ensues. Its self defense by the least measure of the law. Whether its verbal or physical!!! As for retreating criminals, they had a chance to retreat before the came onto the property. As long as the homeowner isnt chasing the guy up the middle of the street shooting @ him im ok.

  22. I’m sorry, VC, but you’re wrong. Defending property is a hazy enough excuse for justifiable homocide, but shooting at a fleeing suspect doesn’t constitute an imminent danger to yourself or others. Washington State does NOT have a castle doctrine law on the books, and Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply to shooting someone leaving the scene.

    In order for you to defend yourself in court successfully as a claim of justifiable homocide, you MUST be able to present three points – opportunity, ability, and jeopardy. A fleeing suspect doesn’t meet any of those criteria. All of the bravado displayed in an online forum isn’t going to come to your aid when facing a jury.

    Anyone following such bad advice needs to have their heads examined.

  23. The answers are:

    1. Vote out bad prosecutors who charge crime victims for defending their homes, their families, and themselves..

    2. Jury Nullification.

    3. Making RCW 9A.16.040 section 1 C apply to everyone, AND expressly codifying that home invasion poses a threat of serious physical harm any time the suspect is within view of the victim, regardless of place, during the crime, or during any attempt to flee the crime scene.

    And Gandalf, I noted your post concerning M.A., and his teachings are well taken, BUT….. If you get into a scrape, he’s not going to be there with you, experiencing the moment. I also presume that both you and Brian would like to see the homeowner charged with a crime. That’s supposition on my part, but a logical conclusion based on what you both have said.

    My view is that home invasion is in every way equal to attempted murder.

    It needs to be made equal to attempted (or completed) suicide.

  24. It doesn’t matter what my OPINION is, I am simply stating the law, as Brian is. I’m sorry if you fail to see the point. Thinking you can go around shooting people that aren’t posing a threat to you, and worse, spreading that idea as fact and how the law works does more harm to the cause of gun rights than just about anything else.

    My only hope is that anyone out there that is reading this and has the misconception that you can shoot someone fleeing from a burglary scene might take it upon themselves to seek REAL legal advice instead of relying on interweb rumors and opinion.

  25. Take a step back Gandalf, and re-read your post. You presume to know what someone else is thinking. Where we part ways is on what we believe, think, and feel, constitutes a threat.

    First, you have to worry about the criminal, what he has done, and may do.

    Second, you cannot dismiss the law, written in the comfort of some legislators office somewhere.

    Third, you have to worry about how that law may or may not be interpreted.

    Fourth, you have to worry about how an anti-self defense media will flail you alive.

    It’s a lot to think about no?

    Every law is just right?

    I’m all for the rule of law to maintain social order. I’m also in favor of the right to defend one’s self, home and others. That right is natural and god given. It is not granted by any man made law.

    So, Judge Gandalf, are you going to convict the Bonney Lake homeowner? I would have nothing to say about your verdict either way. It would speak for itself.

  26. Sigh. I am simply stating fact, based on the evidence/scenario provided. It is not opinion. Nor is it misinterpreting the law, as it stands.
    Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

    Please highlight the section of the law, as written, where it grants an armed citizen the right to shoot someone fleeing from your home?

    Once you start to pursue the suspect, the first crime (home invasion) has stopped, and a second one is about to begin. There is no longer an imminent danger to your or your property. You are not personally threatened. You’ve now become an armed attacker and the fleeing suspect the victim. From the Bonney Lake scenario, as Brian stated, you, in that moment have no knowledge of ANY visible/credible physical threat of grave danger to the public. You have NO justification to shoot anyone. I am sorry, but the law is the law.

    Luckily, no one was injured in the Bonney Lake event.

    I’m sorry if you feel the need to make this a personal thing. Emotionally, I understand your POV, but logically, you’re assertions of committing justifiable murder on an unarmed man, running/driving away (and is no longer posing a threat to you) won’t work in a courtroom, no matter your righteous indignation.

  27. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    I am sure the person (along with other felons/convicted felons) who kicked in the door of that persons house, really appreciate that law.

  28. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    Maybe the victim in this story would still be alive, if somebody had shot the suspect fleeing or not.

  29. KUNSTLERBILD says:

    I would shoot an approaching intruder who was armed in any way negative to my small ability to fend off such. I might fire into the air as a reminder that the retreating criminal should not come back. I will not, under any circumstance, directly fire upon a fleeing person.

  30. Brian O'Neill says:

    dank and NPC- I have trashed some of your previous comments because this is not the venue for idle threats. Feel free to drop comments that have merit, and leave the trash talk for the street.

  31. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    Brain, sorry about that, got a little carried away.

  32. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    Brian, having a little technical difficulty with the internet(If this shows up twice, you know why). Anyway, wanted to apologize for getting carried away ealier.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0