Gun-toting 84-year-old who illegally feeds birds threatens to shoot city worker

[jpak]

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_17367230?nclick_check=1

Redwood City police braced themselves this week when an 84-year old woman dropped into City Hall to pay a fine for illegally feeding birds after she threatened to shoot a code enforcement officer.

As it turned out, the woman paid her fine Thursday without incident, Redwood City police Sgt. Jim Stoney said. He declined to identify her because despite making threats against a city worker, she was not charged or arrested.

"This 84-year-old lady said she'd shoot the code officer," Stoney said. "And she does have a gun registered in her name."

Stoney said he didn't know what kind of gun.

<more>

responsible gun ownership

not

yup

[DrDan]

1. one further case of a gun owner taking the law into their hands

[MineralMan]

2. So, let me get this straight. She's threatening to use a gun to

further her illegal activities? Great...

[Katya Mullethov]

3. She has a gun registered in her name

And has made terroristic threats to public servants and that's the end of it ?
Save for that cacophonous communal queef from city hall .

Perhaps they spent their budget on something more important , like oleanders , and now lack the funds
to incarcerate her , and instead just stick their hand out so that she might fill it . Pissing and moaning
the whole time .

[sharesunited]

4. Today's Second Amendment poster girl. GramMaw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqDGK_UjfFI

[rl6214]

15. GramMaw?

What language is that?

[fascisthunter]

5. guns... a way to force

criminals have been using them too. Gee, I wonder why?

[ixion]

6. yeah, because the military is so much more responsible with their weapons...

:eyes:

Cherry pick much?

[PavePusher]

7. "illegally feeding birds"

I see where the problem is here...

Can you say "Nanny Statism", children? I knew you could....

[Remmah2]

22. Sick birds.

Ill eagle.............

[PavePusher]

23. Face-palm.

At high velocity.

Repeat until I tell you to stop....

Is it Punday already? Where's my coffee...

[here_is_to_hope]

8. I think you spending so much time finding

these cases is telling.

So...why wouldn't they sell you a gun?

[mediator]

9. You hate guns, but you sure love the idea of sliding a sharp knife between the ribs

of somebody, yes?

http://www.mreinfo.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3011

[Bold Lib]

13. Oh my????

[Bold Lib]

25. "Jpak" quoted questioning an UK citizen."Don't you guys also have ridiculous gun laws in England. ."

http://www.mreinfo.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3011

[mediator]

10. So this guy finds her "registered" gun but he has no idea what kind it is?

Uh huh. yup

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. (bird) seeds of hate n/t

[lawodevolution]

12. Where's the video or audio tape of the threat?

[rl6214]

14. 84 years old, probably has alzhiemers

and has no clue what she is doing. Did she brandish a gun? why was she not charged or arrested? There are laws on the books to address this sort of thing but they are not enforced. Why is that and what difference would another law do?

[onehandle]

16. Wow. nt

[petronius]

17. Why the resurrection?

:shrug:

[RSillsbee]

18. Because he couldn't find any good current events stories NT

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. +1

pitiful.

[Straw Man]

20. Reviving five-month-old threads with a one-word commentary?

Sounds kinda desperate to me ...

[ileus]

19. They took her threat pretty serious...

[tortoise1956]

24. Here's the whole story...

It's simply amazing how some research can uncover the real truth. clicking on the link below will reveal that the fine the woman paid was refunded in full because she did nothing wrong. Also, the supposed threat occurred while she was on the phone with a city code enforcement officer.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=8016457

So, we find the following facts:
1. She was not toting a gun.
2. She didn't do anything illegal.
3. The fine was refunded because she didn't do anything illegal.

As to the threat of shooting someone, all we have is the word of a code enforcement officer that she even made a threat. (Was this employee from the same bunch that cited her for a legal act? Don't know). Having been unjustly accused of threatening someone in the past, I am not predisposed to accept the unsubstantiated word of a single person.

So, what can we take away from this? First, Jpak is very good at posting inflammatory stories, but not so good at researching his own work. Second, it's not too hard to refute mostly fact-free posts. Third, (and this one is still theoretical, but I expect it to be proved through repeated demonstrations), this will not deter Jpak from his quest: to show how ill-informed the anti-gun bunch can be.