-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
2 campers shot in their sleep
- Thread starter Alvin Hom
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3
This happened in my neck of the woods. I talked to Rigsby subsequently and he was convinced that had they not been armed, heavily armed at that, they would have been killed. He had 30 round mags. I don't even day hike without a firearm if I can help it.
Great list, by the way. I think this is my first post; I normally live on the gun forums but I decided I needed to sharpen my knife knowledge
(My love for knives was rekindled by an impulse purchase of an Emerson Hard Wear Reliant. My first Tanto and a darn nice knife for the money, IMHO.)
Enjoy:
563. They Didn't Plan On Leaving Witnesses
After saying goodbye to his wife, Mary, Brian Rigsby left their home outside Atlanta, Georgia, to pick up his friend Tom Styer for an impromptu camping trip on the afternoon of Saturday, November 24, 1990.
Getting a late start and making a few wrong turns in the Oconee National Forest, the two friends didn't arrive at their campsite until well after dark. They'd chosen a spot convenient to the public rifle range in Oconee, and eagerly looked forward to some target practice the next day.
By the light of a lantern, the friends pitched a tent and then built a campfire. They were settling in for the night when they heard the distinctive growl of a diesel engine approaching. Shortly thereafter, a truck pulled up, right into the middle of the camp. Rigsby noticed that it was a work truck, with the name of a business painted on the side.
Two men got out and introduced themselves, explaining that they were driving around to meet people and help out. Exceedingly polite, the visitors insisted on helping Rigsby and Styer cut more firewood. During their hour-long stay, the courteous duo depicted themselves as long-time residents of the area, boasting about their extensive knowledge of the surrounding woods.
Rigsby remembers feeling uncomfortable with the two men, and relieved when they finally left. He even considered moving the camp to another location. But before any firm decision could be reached, Rigsby and Styer heard the truck's diesel engine once again driving down the road toward their camp. It was the only road in.
The truck stopped before reaching the camp, and its engine abruptly cut off. In the quiet that followed, Rigsby and Styer heard the faint crackle of leaves rustling as their former visitors stole toward the campsite.
When the two friends realized they were being stalked, each grabbed his gun and made sure it was loaded. Rigsby took cover behind his truck, armed with a Ruger Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine, while Styer knelt in the tent's shadow with his .45 pistol at the ready.
Rigsby was shocked and filled with disbelief. "I tried to listen for the men," he recalls, "but couldn't hear much over the sound of my breathing and the pounding of my heart."
It was Styer that saw them first. One of the men slid suddenly into the light cast by the campfire, pointing his double-barrelled shotgun in Rigsby's direction. Afraid he would actually shoot, Rigsby kept his head down, and heard Styer ask the man why he came back with a gun. In reply, the man swung the shotgun toward Styer and answered, "I'm going to kill you."
Styer instructed the intruder to drop his gun. Instead, the intruder fired, hitting Styer in the legs.
Rigsby remembers seeing the front sight of his Mini-14 centered on the assailant's chest. He fired twice. Quickly swinging the rifle toward the second attacker's position, Rigsby fired six or seven additional rounds, determining his point of aim by the flash from the other man 's muzzle against the blackness of the surrounding forest.
Partially blinded by the flash from his own muzzle, Rigsby dropped back down behind his truck. He looked underneath the frame, across the campsite. Seeing no one, he yelled for help. There was no answer. He called out to Styer, but heard no response.
Rigsby knew that the first attacker was down and no longer a threat. But the other gunman was out there, somewhere. Rigsby strained his ears, trying to hear any movement in the nearby trees. He heard nothing. He looked around the camp and beyond it into the woods, but still saw no one. Waiting a few minutes, he called again to Styer, but his friend still did not answer.
Rigsby then began to move slowly and cautiously backward, away from the camp. Seeing a light through the trees, he started toward it. Amazingly, he found a camp filled with hunters about 300 yds. away.
One of the hunters hurried away to call the police, who responded and immediately placed Rigsby under arrest. They returned to the scene of the attack and found Styer, still alive.
The shotgun-wielding attacker had been hit twice and died at the scene. His accomplice was also hit twice, but survived. Both carried 12-ga. scatterguns loaded with 3" magnum buckshot, and both had fired their weapons at Rigsby and Styer.
The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital. In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.
Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.
(Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned.)
http://www.healylaw.com/self-def.htm
Great list, by the way. I think this is my first post; I normally live on the gun forums but I decided I needed to sharpen my knife knowledge
(My love for knives was rekindled by an impulse purchase of an Emerson Hard Wear Reliant. My first Tanto and a darn nice knife for the money, IMHO.)Enjoy:
563. They Didn't Plan On Leaving Witnesses
After saying goodbye to his wife, Mary, Brian Rigsby left their home outside Atlanta, Georgia, to pick up his friend Tom Styer for an impromptu camping trip on the afternoon of Saturday, November 24, 1990.
Getting a late start and making a few wrong turns in the Oconee National Forest, the two friends didn't arrive at their campsite until well after dark. They'd chosen a spot convenient to the public rifle range in Oconee, and eagerly looked forward to some target practice the next day.
By the light of a lantern, the friends pitched a tent and then built a campfire. They were settling in for the night when they heard the distinctive growl of a diesel engine approaching. Shortly thereafter, a truck pulled up, right into the middle of the camp. Rigsby noticed that it was a work truck, with the name of a business painted on the side.
Two men got out and introduced themselves, explaining that they were driving around to meet people and help out. Exceedingly polite, the visitors insisted on helping Rigsby and Styer cut more firewood. During their hour-long stay, the courteous duo depicted themselves as long-time residents of the area, boasting about their extensive knowledge of the surrounding woods.
Rigsby remembers feeling uncomfortable with the two men, and relieved when they finally left. He even considered moving the camp to another location. But before any firm decision could be reached, Rigsby and Styer heard the truck's diesel engine once again driving down the road toward their camp. It was the only road in.
The truck stopped before reaching the camp, and its engine abruptly cut off. In the quiet that followed, Rigsby and Styer heard the faint crackle of leaves rustling as their former visitors stole toward the campsite.
When the two friends realized they were being stalked, each grabbed his gun and made sure it was loaded. Rigsby took cover behind his truck, armed with a Ruger Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine, while Styer knelt in the tent's shadow with his .45 pistol at the ready.
Rigsby was shocked and filled with disbelief. "I tried to listen for the men," he recalls, "but couldn't hear much over the sound of my breathing and the pounding of my heart."
It was Styer that saw them first. One of the men slid suddenly into the light cast by the campfire, pointing his double-barrelled shotgun in Rigsby's direction. Afraid he would actually shoot, Rigsby kept his head down, and heard Styer ask the man why he came back with a gun. In reply, the man swung the shotgun toward Styer and answered, "I'm going to kill you."
Styer instructed the intruder to drop his gun. Instead, the intruder fired, hitting Styer in the legs.
Rigsby remembers seeing the front sight of his Mini-14 centered on the assailant's chest. He fired twice. Quickly swinging the rifle toward the second attacker's position, Rigsby fired six or seven additional rounds, determining his point of aim by the flash from the other man 's muzzle against the blackness of the surrounding forest.
Partially blinded by the flash from his own muzzle, Rigsby dropped back down behind his truck. He looked underneath the frame, across the campsite. Seeing no one, he yelled for help. There was no answer. He called out to Styer, but heard no response.
Rigsby knew that the first attacker was down and no longer a threat. But the other gunman was out there, somewhere. Rigsby strained his ears, trying to hear any movement in the nearby trees. He heard nothing. He looked around the camp and beyond it into the woods, but still saw no one. Waiting a few minutes, he called again to Styer, but his friend still did not answer.
Rigsby then began to move slowly and cautiously backward, away from the camp. Seeing a light through the trees, he started toward it. Amazingly, he found a camp filled with hunters about 300 yds. away.
One of the hunters hurried away to call the police, who responded and immediately placed Rigsby under arrest. They returned to the scene of the attack and found Styer, still alive.
The shotgun-wielding attacker had been hit twice and died at the scene. His accomplice was also hit twice, but survived. Both carried 12-ga. scatterguns loaded with 3" magnum buckshot, and both had fired their weapons at Rigsby and Styer.
The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital. In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.
Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.
(Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned.)
http://www.healylaw.com/self-def.htm
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2004
- Messages
- 16
This is not only true, but typical. I live in the area and have hunted the WMA where this occurred. I studied this story in the paper, then again when I went through the Northeast Georgia Police Accademy.
Working as a Deputy Sheriff in a county jail, I saw people convicted of several felonies, shipped off to state prison, only to show up in my Intake 4 MONTHS LATER!
Write your congressman.
Ricardo the Magnificent
Working as a Deputy Sheriff in a county jail, I saw people convicted of several felonies, shipped off to state prison, only to show up in my Intake 4 MONTHS LATER!
Write your congressman.Ricardo the Magnificent
Ricardo Magnificent said:This is not only true, but typical. I live in the area and have hunted the WMA where this occurred. I studied this story in the paper, then again when I went through the Northeast Georgia Police Accademy.
Working as a Deputy Sheriff in a county jail, I saw people convicted of several felonies, shipped off to state prison, only to show up in my Intake 4 MONTHS LATER!
Ricardo the Magnificent
If they're shipped off to state prison, however briefly, then they were prosecuted and sentenced under state law, not federal law. Most crimes, even serious ones, are prosecuted by the states or their political subdivisions (cities and counties).
If you're not happy with what a certain part of the government is doing, then please complain to the right person instead of wasting your time. The federal government is not going to take over prosecution of most crimes from the states, so if you're p*ssed by your state being too lenient on crime then write to your state legislator, not your congressman. The problem here appears to be that the DA chose to plea bargain rather than prosecute the guy for attempted murder, plus the judge was way too lenient.
Bill D.
All that stuff is affected -- sometimes even defined -- by things like federal monies and court decisions. And then there are federal laws that all state laws are subordinate to. Hence the congressman.
But you make a good point that the locals are part of the problem.
Now, me, I would just fence off a big old compound in eastern Washington (desert) and let criminals do unto themselves as they have done to others. Air drop in some food every once in a while to prove you are humanitarian. Or better yet, catapult some roadkill over the wall instead.
But that's just me.
Scott
But you make a good point that the locals are part of the problem.
Now, me, I would just fence off a big old compound in eastern Washington (desert) and let criminals do unto themselves as they have done to others. Air drop in some food every once in a while to prove you are humanitarian. Or better yet, catapult some roadkill over the wall instead.
But that's just me.
Scott
beezaur said:
That would make sense in some other areas such as education or welfare where lots of federal money goes to states and localities with strings attached. However, Congress doesn't fund the state criminal justice systems to any great extent. Also, federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate , not the House. Finally, federal criminal law focuses on crimes of particular interest to the federal government- Congress does not micromanage the state criminal justice systems. Writing to your congressman about a state criminal justice system would still be a waste of time. If you're lucky the letter would be forwarded to your state representative where it should go in the first place.
beezaur said:
Robert Heinlein wrote a novel about that decades ago, called "Coventry". Provocative reading.
Bill D.
What I find most disgusting is that when the next election rolls around these same jerks who are responsible for letting this thug loose--the D.A and the state legislators--are going to be squeeling that we need more gun control.
Anybody who uses a firearm in the commission of a felony should be jailed for life. Wanna bet that reduces gun crime?
Vince
Anybody who uses a firearm in the commission of a felony should be jailed for life. Wanna bet that reduces gun crime?
Vince
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3
norad45 said:
So, if someone uses a bomb would you support a relatively lesser sentence than would apply to someone who used a firearm?
If someone kidnapped, raped, and tortured a woman, using only a knife and other apparatus, over a period of days, would you let him out sooner than someone who committed an armed robbery with a firearm (a felony) during which no shots were fired?
My opinion is that impugning firearms by the convention of referring to "gun crimes" becomes a tool for the anti-gun people to attack the gun rather than the crime. Hate the criminal, not the tool. (By the way, in the UK where they have virtually outlawed firearms -- and self-defense, by the way -- they now have a category of "knife crimes." And legislation is being passed all over the kingdom outlawing knives.)
I don't go ANYWHERE without a
1. Trained German Shepherd Dog (Big)
2. Sharp, knife (Big) and did I say sharp?
3. AWARENESS!
I also try to wear earth-tone colors (no I am not tree-hugger)
and not make alot of noise to detect my presence. Something
I did while in Marine Recon. I also scout my area, as I like solitude.
alex
www.cqbk9.com
1. Trained German Shepherd Dog (Big)
2. Sharp, knife (Big) and did I say sharp?
3. AWARENESS!
I also try to wear earth-tone colors (no I am not tree-hugger)
and not make alot of noise to detect my presence. Something
I did while in Marine Recon. I also scout my area, as I like solitude.
alex
www.cqbk9.com
I actually support stiffer sentences for all crimes. But if gun enhancements will get more thugs like that off the streets than would be removed otherwise then let's use them. My point is that nobody actually wants to do the obvious: lock the bastards up.
If I am not mistaken, there are actually firearms enhancements (federal, I believe) which, until the Bush administration took over, were rarely if ever used by the previous administrations. I believe it is something along the lines of an additional 10 years in a federal prison for each offense where a gun is used on top of whatever the state charges will bear.
Enforcing those is a good start. Let's also get to work crafting similar legislation for the other violent offenders. (The bombthrowers already have anti-terrorism laws to get nailed on.)
The problem is of course the people who say that mandatory minimums are too harsh. Same old bleeding-heart crapola.
Vince
P.S.: I have zero sympathy for anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime where "no shots are fired." The only reward for such behavior should be avoiding death row. Otherwise, lock 'em up for as long as possible.
If I am not mistaken, there are actually firearms enhancements (federal, I believe) which, until the Bush administration took over, were rarely if ever used by the previous administrations. I believe it is something along the lines of an additional 10 years in a federal prison for each offense where a gun is used on top of whatever the state charges will bear.
Enforcing those is a good start. Let's also get to work crafting similar legislation for the other violent offenders. (The bombthrowers already have anti-terrorism laws to get nailed on.)
The problem is of course the people who say that mandatory minimums are too harsh. Same old bleeding-heart crapola.
Vince
P.S.: I have zero sympathy for anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime where "no shots are fired." The only reward for such behavior should be avoiding death row. Otherwise, lock 'em up for as long as possible.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 605
I mentioned the Zodiac killer in my post in this thread, when I did a search on this murder,guess what came up?????
http://www.zodiackiller.com/Newscenter.html
Makes one wonder
http://www.zodiackiller.com/Newscenter.html
Makes one wonder
Ebbtide
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 1999
- Messages
- 7,958
NYC has a mandatory 1 year sentence for carrying an illegal handgun. Been that way since the 70's (IIRC)
Do you think that law has disuaded BG's from carrying?
New laws aren't necessary. We have enough, thankyou
Keep the convicted in for their sentence.
Cut down plea bargaining for violent criminals.
Keep the BG's off the street instead of making new laws that only, realistically, affect law abiding citizens. After all, if you're going to rob the 7-11, will you worry about your weapon being illegal?
Ebbtide
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 1999
- Messages
- 7,958
OK, I guess we agree to miss each others points 
If they already comitted a crime and are imprisoned...keep them in for their full sentence. No plea bargains.
No new law necessary.
Under the Guilaini administration, petty crimes were prosecuted. Fare evasion, open containers (alcohol) in the street, etc. Crime went down.
Large numbers of people drinkin in the street and jumping turnstiles were also wanted for outstanding warrants, other crimes, etc.
The crime rate went down, dramatically, because the repeat offenders were taken off of the street.
No new laws were enacted. The old ones were used and enforced.
The system is in place. It works as well as the people who run it.
If the shooters in this thread get out early it is the fault of the system.
Liberal judges, prosecutors who accept plea bargains and lenient parole boards are to blame.
FWIW the few guys that I've talked to, that did time on Rikers Island, considered it a Rite of Passage. And some a training school.
So in essence, I agree with you. But I would take a different path to get to the same place
If they already comitted a crime and are imprisoned...keep them in for their full sentence. No plea bargains.
No new law necessary.
Under the Guilaini administration, petty crimes were prosecuted. Fare evasion, open containers (alcohol) in the street, etc. Crime went down.
Large numbers of people drinkin in the street and jumping turnstiles were also wanted for outstanding warrants, other crimes, etc.
The crime rate went down, dramatically, because the repeat offenders were taken off of the street.
No new laws were enacted. The old ones were used and enforced.
The system is in place. It works as well as the people who run it.
If the shooters in this thread get out early it is the fault of the system.
Liberal judges, prosecutors who accept plea bargains and lenient parole boards are to blame.
FWIW the few guys that I've talked to, that did time on Rikers Island, considered it a Rite of Passage. And some a training school.
So in essence, I agree with you. But I would take a different path to get to the same place
I think we are in agreement about leniant judges!
I think about those guys doing time at Rikers though. I wonder if they would still sing the same tune if, after their 6 month stint for an armed mugging, they had to do a 10 year term in a Federal prison on a firearms enhancement?
That's not a rite of passage--that's a long, dark tunnel. Warms my heart just thinking about it. Unfortunately, we as a society lack the will to make it a reality. Instead we elect Schumers and Feinsteins.
To get back to the original topic, what do you want to bet that whoever committed this crime has been charged before for at least one violent felony?
And maybe been let off lightly because they were a juvenile?
Regards, Vince
I think about those guys doing time at Rikers though. I wonder if they would still sing the same tune if, after their 6 month stint for an armed mugging, they had to do a 10 year term in a Federal prison on a firearms enhancement?
That's not a rite of passage--that's a long, dark tunnel. Warms my heart just thinking about it. Unfortunately, we as a society lack the will to make it a reality. Instead we elect Schumers and Feinsteins.
To get back to the original topic, what do you want to bet that whoever committed this crime has been charged before for at least one violent felony?
And maybe been let off lightly because they were a juvenile?
Regards, Vince
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2004
- Messages
- 16
It's been a while since I looked at this thread. When I said "write your Congressman" I meant Representatives both state and federal. Less than ONE PERCENT of felons who possess a firearm during the commission of a crime are tried in federal court under the armed felon statute. This law mandates a five year term on top of whatever the state sentence is. The liberal lawmakers are constantly screaming about the evil guns owned by the general public, but never mention enforcing the laws already written.
Ricardo
Ricardo
Ricardo Magnificent said:It's been a while since I looked at this thread. When I said "write your Congressman" I meant Representatives both state and federal. Less than ONE PERCENT of felons who possess a firearm during the commission of a crime are tried in federal court under the armed felon statute. This law mandates a five year term on top of whatever the state sentence is. The liberal lawmakers are constantly screaming about the evil guns owned by the general public, but never mention enforcing the laws already written.
Ricardo
Lawmakers don't *enforce* the law- that's the job of the executive branch, whether state or federal. If federal laws are not being enforced, write the Justice Department or the President. If you want the laws changed, then write to the appropriate lawmakers.
Bill D.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 200
y'all wanna' do away with plea bargains? well, i hope you're prepared to watch your taxes go up drastically. you know the difference in cost between having a a defendant get up and plead guilty to a lesser charge and have the judge say "do you understand that you're giving up your right to a jury trial?" and then lock him up versus the state (a.k.a. "you and me") prosecuting the defendant in a jury trial? lemme give you a clue: it's HUGE.
y'all gonna' pay for it without bitching? while the courts get clogged up 20 times worse by a bunch of trivialities, with hardcore criminals waiting 9 months for a trial and out on bail in the meantime? and then being found "not guilty" because the cops screwed something up?
you do away with plea bargains and every thug on the street has NOTHING to lose by taking his case to a full-blown jury trial. do you have ANY idea how much time and resources would be required to take every accused felon to trial? bear in mind also that not every one will be found guilty either. so now you have felons walking the street with NO jail time after having cost you and me thousands and thousands of dollars.
everybody wants the bad guys locked up and kept off the streets. well, we can do that...as long as you're willing to fork 70% of your paycheck over to the IRS every two weeks...
y'all gonna' pay for it without bitching? while the courts get clogged up 20 times worse by a bunch of trivialities, with hardcore criminals waiting 9 months for a trial and out on bail in the meantime? and then being found "not guilty" because the cops screwed something up?
you do away with plea bargains and every thug on the street has NOTHING to lose by taking his case to a full-blown jury trial. do you have ANY idea how much time and resources would be required to take every accused felon to trial? bear in mind also that not every one will be found guilty either. so now you have felons walking the street with NO jail time after having cost you and me thousands and thousands of dollars.
everybody wants the bad guys locked up and kept off the streets. well, we can do that...as long as you're willing to fork 70% of your paycheck over to the IRS every two weeks...