[N8 v2.0]

Home invasion shooting leaves one dead
April 2, 2004
kerikirby@gannett.com

A would-be robber is dead and one of his victims is in jail on drug charges after a home invasion early Thursday morning.

Carlos Cannon, 22, of Shreveport died after allegedly breaking into a home in the 3900 block of Sumner Street and being shot by the homeowner, 24-year-old Quirinius Wilson, said Shreveport police Detective Jeff Brown.

Wilson, also known as Casey Eugene Wilson, and his 29-year-old wife were asleep when Cannon and at least two other men allegedly forced their way inside, Brown said. "They heard the door being kicked in, and (Wilson) lay there in wait and she got in the closet and hid."

Cannon, armed with a semiautomatic handgun he never fired, charged down the hall but didn't make it farther than the open bedroom door when he was hit in the abdomen several times by more than 12 rounds fired from Wilson's SKS assault rifle, Brown said.

At least one of the other two intruders fired several shots through the living room wall. One grazed the wife's left arm. She was treated at the scene.

"They just had their own little war inside the house," Brown said.

The intruders realized they were outgunned and ran, leaving their vehicle, Brown said. "Wilson went out the front door and fired a couple of times toward where he said he thought he heard them."

Wilson was not charged in the shooting because he acted in self-defense, Brown said. But he was arrested after police reportedly discovered marijuana in the house. Wilson was charged on one count each of possession of a Schedule I narcotic and possession of a Schedule I narcotic with intent to distribute, Brown said.

©The Shreveport Times
April 2, 2004

 

[Spud]

I'm glad the drug dealer wasn't charged with shooting the burglar...

 

[ummbikes]

So a drug dealer shoots a dude trying to steal his shiz and kills him.

How is this a positive thing?

Unless you get your weed from him N8.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Oh, so now a little weed a dealer one makes..???

I thought that weed was not a drug but a way of life. See the Mary Jane Thread
Lib's!!!

 

[BostonBullit]

it's simply a story with a happy ending

 

[Tenchiro]

I wish I had an SKS...

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I wish I had an SKS...

I wish I had weed enough to need an SKS or do I?

 

[derekbob]

So if this guy was just a drug dealer, he deserves to be thrown in prison w/o rehabilitation, but since he shot and killed someone with an AR, hes a posterboy for the NRA.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
I wish I had weed enough to need an SKS or do I?

Need?!?

I just want one! :devil:

 

[boostindoubles]

wacky story there, dude has an SKS to protect his business. Dudes break in to steal his herb, they get shot. Dude gets arrested. Sounds like someones been watching too much scarface...

 

[Silver]

Yeah, this may not be your regular "home invasion."

But details never stopped N8 from posting a news blurb...

 

[brenth]

The intruders realized they were outgunned and ran, leaving their vehicle, Brown said. "Wilson went out the front door and fired a couple of times toward where he said he thought he heard them."

So the dude walked out his front door, and started shooting into the night????? wtf?

 

[boostindoubles]

I like how the selling pot thing was minimilized. This whole invasion would have never even happened if pot was legal, and intruder would not have been capped. The guy with the SKS couldnt turn a profit selling pot. Therefor he wouldnt have cash/herb in bulk around to attract people to invade his home. And he probably wouldnt need an SKS to protect himself. just my opinion though...peace

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by N8
Home invasion shooting leaves one dead
April 2, 2004
kerikirby@gannett.com

Wilson was charged on one count each of possession of a Schedule I narcotic and possession of a Schedule I narcotic with intent to distribute, Brown said.

©The Shreveport Times
April 2, 2004

nice! i wish the thugs around here could shoot that well. i say let the dealers kill each other, only problem is that none of them can shoot. we'll have 15-20 casings on the ground and not a single hit at a crime scene. so that means the dude had time to reload and STILL didn't hit anything....friggin amatures

on a side note.....weed is a schedule VI narcotic, paper must have quoted it wrong. heroin, pcp, crystal meth are schedule I.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by boostindoubles
I like how the selling pot thing was minimilized. This whole invasion would have never even happened if pot was legal, and intruder would not have been capped. The guy with the SKS couldnt turn a profit selling pot. Therefor he wouldnt have cash/herb in bulk around to attract people to invade his home. And he probably wouldnt need an SKS to protect himself. just my opinion though...peace

hmmm, interesting opinion.....too bad that if/when it's legalized the THC levels will be so low due to regulation that true potheads (golgi...) will still have to buy from joe rag the dealer to get the good stuff, therefore, nothing has changed. it just makes hit harder for us po-po to tell whether it's the legal kind or not. i could care less if it's legalized, it'll just give me a lot more DWI's to deal with.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by manimal

on a side note.....weed is a schedule VI narcotic, paper must have quoted it wrong. heroin, pcp, crystal meth are schedule I.

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/listby_sched/sched1.htm

Marijuana is on there, unless it got changed very recently and they haven't updated the website yet.

Marinol (synthetic THC) is schedule III.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by Silver
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/listby_sched/sched1.htm

Marijuana is on there, unless it got changed very recently and they haven't updated the website yet.

Marinol (synthetic THC) is schedule III.

oops, my bad. in NC, mary ju wana is a sched VI. different states have different ratings. kinda jumped into that one without thinking i guess

 

[boostindoubles]

Originally posted by manimal
hmmm, interesting opinion.....too bad that if/when it's legalized the THC levels will be so low due to regulation that true potheads (golgi...) will still have to buy from joe rag the dealer to get the good stuff, therefore, nothing has changed. it just makes hit harder for us po-po to tell whether it's the legal kind or not. i could care less if it's legalized, it'll just give me a lot more DWI's to deal with.

?Your saying if it was legalized that they'd stick with the hemp based weed with minimal potency, and keep the potent illegal? that makes little to no sense to me. Even if the weak **** was made legal, production of the good stuff would bump up a notch as well, increasing the supply, driving the price down. With a lower price, theres less profits to be made, and dealers will get out of the market. So you'd have less dealers, and less crime around it.

Personally i could keep myself in supply all year of some heady herb with a couple plants in pots on my balcony. Therefor, no dealers, no SKS's, no selling, and no smuggling. Straight from me to me.

peace


btw, maybe i'd have to get an SKS to protect my crpo though... lol

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by boostindoubles
?Your saying if it was legalized that they'd stick with the hemp based weed with minimal potency, and keep the potent illegal? that makes little to no sense to me. Even if the weak **** was made legal, production of the good stuff would bump up a notch as well, increasing the supply, driving the price down. With a lower price, theres less profits to be made, and dealers will get out of the market. So you'd have less dealers, and less crime around it.

Personally i could keep myself in supply all year of some heady herb with a couple plants in pots on my balcony. Therefor, no dealers, no SKS's, no selling, and no smuggling. Straight from me to me.

peace


btw, maybe i'd have to get an SKS to protect my crpo though... lol

the problem, once again, is if it's legalized, it will be heavily controlled. you will not be allowed to grow your own because the FDA would not be allowed to control the level of THC in your own personal stash. the latest governmental rumor that i've heard said that if regulated, it would be around 4%, similar to weed in the 70's, not the 14%+ of today. so regardless.....legalization would not affect the crime rate accept that even more people would be too stoned and lazy to do anything

 

[boostindoubles]

Originally posted by manimal
even more people would be too stoned and lazy to do anything

Well, as far as that goes, i'd rather be around someone whos stoned than someone who's drunk.....a drunk person is usually rowdy and obnoxious. getting in trouble and crashing their car. Not so with the stoner. At least not any stoner i've ever met.

hell with only 4% thc its not even stoned, its just a headache.... i dont see how that would benefit anyone

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by derekbob
So if this guy was just a drug dealer, he deserves to be thrown in prison w/o rehabilitation, but since he shot and killed someone with an AR, hes a posterboy for the NRA.

What bullshi+. Most likely, he was not a dealer but was just charged as such because aaat that moment, he had over the possession limit...like half an ounce. The jails are full of "dealers" who only had a 2-week supply on hand that they never intended to sell(or in some cases, even share).

An SKS is a cheap-assed POS 7.62mm or 5.56mm old infantry rifle, probably of Egyptian or Chinese origin. You could buy 10 of them for the same price as a single Colt AR-15.

If you ever bothered to ASK someone in the NRA, they would tell you that the NRA does not consider him a posterboy by any means.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by manimal
hmmm, interesting opinion.....too bad that if/when it's legalized the THC levels will be so low due to regulation that true potheads (golgi...) will still have to buy from joe rag the dealer to get the good stuff, therefore, nothing has changed. it just makes hit harder for us po-po to tell whether it's the legal kind or not. i could care less if it's legalized, it'll just give me a lot more DWI's to deal with.

It won't be legalized...ever. And your assumption on only dirtweed being legalized in bunk. Why would anyone having tasted better choose to take 10 bong hits of schwag when you could take just two of the good stuff and not have to pick out seeds and stems from the bag? It's legal(or decriminalized) or it's not. That little initiative going on in Amsterdam won't ever pass and the whole "it's not your father's marijuana" theory is similary bullshi+. The same genetic strains have been around for thousands of years. The only thing that has changed is general knowledge on how to grow it competently. Simply culling all male plants before they flower would make Mexican ditchweed seedless and of higher potency. When you drink alcohol, do you use the same glass to pour a drink of bourbon that you use for a pint of beer? Having more potent weed means you just have to smoke less of it for the same desired effect...plus it tastes better.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by boostindoubles
Well, as far as that goes, i'd rather be around someone whos stoned than someone who's drunk.....a drunk person is usually rowdy and obnoxious. getting in trouble and crashing their car. Not so with the stoner. At least not any stoner i've ever met.

hell with only 4% thc its not even stoned, its just a headache.... i dont see how that would benefit anyone

that's why i really don't give a sh!t about it. if you wanna fry your brain then fine...same thing as alcohol to me...but try and drive with it in your system and it's the same as driving drunk. one of my goals in life is to make a DWI driver, whether drunk or stoned, look as bad as legally possible in court.....just not worth it if you ask me. well, not here in NC anyway...we don't mess around w/ DWI's

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by manimal
that's why i really don't give a sh!t about it. if you wanna fry your brain then fine...same thing as alcohol to me...but try and drive with it in your system and it's the same as driving drunk. one of my goals in life is to make a DWI driver, whether drunk or stoned, look as bad as legally possible in court.....just not worth it if you ask me. well, not here in NC anyway...we don't mess around w/ DWI's

I understand your desire to enforce the law, but I can tell you for a fact that there is a HUGE difference. You can not smoke enough weed(even the very best) to affect your motor skills the way even moderate amounts of alcohol do. Yeah, pot slows down your reaction times a bit(which is certainly not good), but the most stoned you could ever be would amount to perhaps a .05 on the alcohol scale. It's just NOT the same! I have passed numerous field sobriety tests and have been pulled over at checkpoints, etc. while stoned in the past. I don't do it now and have learned the error of my previous ways, but that does not mean DRUNK = STONED is any easier an error to ignore.

 

[boostindoubles]

driving stoned is a shifty topic. People i know, that ride in cars with me alot, have told to my face that they prefer i be stoned when i am driving because they feel i am a safer driver. I go slower, leave big spaces between me and other drivers, i access the interesections before i make a move. But thats their opinion, not mine. I prefer to be sober as i know if i get in an accident i dont have to worry about talking to the law while high, and it leaves that whole senario of DWI out of it.

While the little durnk driving i've done has been a scary ride. I wont do it again, its not safe. I'm not slower, and i cant stay in my lanes. I was freaked out and felt very insecure behind the wheel. Again i;ve only driven drunk 3 or 4 times. Even when i broke my leg and had percoset, i was very worried about my cordination. Way more so than with pot.

The brain does not react to alcohol the same way it does pot. They are not the same thing. I have logged many many hours in the past behind the wheel high. Never had any accidents. Never caused any accidents. My two accidents were done stone cold sober, and my 5 tickets were all stone cold sober.

peace

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I understand your desire to enforce the law, but I can tell you for a fact that there is a HUGE difference. You can not smoke enough weed(even the very best) to affect your motor skills the way even moderate amounts of alcohol do. Yeah, pot slows down your reaction times a bit(which is certainly not good), but the most stoned you could ever be would amount to perhaps a .05 on the alcohol scale. It's just NOT the same! I have passed numerous field sobriety tests and have been pulled over at checkpoints, etc. while stoned in the past. I don't do it now and have learned the error of my previous ways, but that does not mean DRUNK = STONED is any easier an error to ignore.

Tell that to your boss when you have a CDL and get popped...

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by N8
Tell that to your boss when you have a CDL and get popped...

I'll be sure to file that advice away for when I decide to pursue a new career path.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I understand your desire to enforce the law, but I can tell you for a fact that there is a HUGE difference. You can not smoke enough weed(even the very best) to affect your motor skills the way even moderate amounts of alcohol do. Yeah, pot slows down your reaction times a bit(which is certainly not good), but the most stoned you could ever be would amount to perhaps a .05 on the alcohol scale. It's just NOT the same! I have passed numerous field sobriety tests and have been pulled over at checkpoints, etc. while stoned in the past. I don't do it now and have learned the error of my previous ways, but that does not mean DRUNK = STONED is any easier an error to ignore.

perhaps you're driving skills are extraordinary but i can prove to you in FACT that being, even mildly stoned, can and does affect your motor skills severly enough to be considered dangerous. i have books and books of required course material on the difference between drunk and stoned and the driving characteristics of both. one cannot dispute the FACTS that surround the lengthy studies of the effects of weed on the brain. i find it amusing when someone on the street tries to debate the powers of weed with me with info they gathered from an issue of high times just talking with these idiots while they're stoned is enough evidence to prove my point.....but the science of it is a great backup.

 

[derekbob]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
What bullshi+. Most likely, he was not a dealer but was just charged as such because aaat that moment, he had over the possession limit...like half an ounce. The jails are full of "dealers" who only had a 2-week supply on hand that they never intended to sell(or in some cases, even share).

An SKS is a cheap-assed POS 7.62mm or 5.56mm old infantry rifle, probably of Egyptian or Chinese origin. You could buy 10 of them for the same price as a single Colt AR-15.

If you ever bothered to ASK someone in the NRA, they would tell you that the NRA does not consider him a posterboy by any means.

Im sorry, hes a posterboy for N8, not the NRA

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by derekbob
Im sorry, hes a posterboy for N8, not the NRA

goofball...

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by manimal
perhaps you're driving skills are extraordinary but i can prove to you in FACT that being, even mildly stoned, can and does affect your motor skills severly enough to be considered dangerous. i have books and books of required course material on the difference between drunk and stoned and the driving characteristics of both. one cannot dispute the FACTS that surround the lengthy studies of the effects of weed on the brain. i find it amusing when someone on the street tries to debate the powers of weed with me with info they gathered from an issue of high times just talking with these idiots while they're stoned is enough evidence to prove my point.....but the science of it is a great backup.

Please prove to me these FACTS. I patiently await your empirical evidence.

I certainly did not gather my facts from biased sources like High Times OR books written by the Drug Policy Institute, CDC in Atlanta, Partnership for a Drug Free America or law enforcement textbooks. How about an unbiased scientific/academic study that tries to discover facts instead of supporting established political suppositions? Again, I do not dispute that it has deleterious effects on motor skill or reaction times. I was merely saying that driving as stoned as you can possibly get is not anywhere in the same league as driving legally drunk...to say nothing of exceeding the legal BAC limit by 50% - 150%.

Can you honestly tell me that you have ever come across a stoned(and just stoned) driver who was as incoherent and uncoordinated as the drunk drivers you deal with regularly? I would bet if you listed your top 20 worst DUI offenders, they were all drunk rather than just stoned.

 

[boostindoubles]

I cant help but conclude that the materials manimal's refering too are going to be one sided. I dont think that anywhere in a police manual is there going to be anything positive or leinent about the use of an illegal substance.

Also i have seen the studies of pot on brain and they are less than accurate. Try forcing monkeys to smoke monkey sized joints, and testing the results? I saw that one. How about taking airline pilots who had never smoked pot in their life, getting them comatosely ripped and putting them in a flight simulator? seen that one. It seems like these tests are designed to come up with pre-decided results. I cant help but wonder if the results of these were found under some political pretense to fit a political agenda. I am not doubting maninmal that you have studied pot and booze in all your required course materials. But i have also studied these things first hand for 4 years +. I know how i react, and how i handle situations. I also have seen other people in the same frame of mind as me attempt to do the same(drive intoxicated)

I have friends who i wont ride with high but then i am afriad to ride with them sober too. Your books cannot possibly cover the individual and his reaction to pot. For every person its different.

 

[BlackhillsBob]

I wonder why it was called an assault rifle, sounds like it was defence to me, so it sould say: Armed invader shot with a defenceive rifle.