Drive by shooting in Brookside

[Hammock Parties]

Jesus. Now even the nice neighborhoods are getting shot up.

This town needs an enema!

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local...180768716.html

A man in his late 30s was sitting on his front porch in Brookside on Wednesday morning when he was shot to death, Kansas City police said.

Just after 8 a.m. police were summoned to the 200 block of West 66th Terrace, which is just east of Brookside and Wornall roads, on a shooting.

“It appears that our victim was sitting on his front porch of his residence when he was shot. The victim’s spouse heard something and came out and discovered her spouse on the ground,” said police spokeswoman Sgt. Kari Thompson.

Investigators are searching the area but have very limited suspect information. The shooting is not believed to have been random.

Police said they were looking for a white 1997 Chevrolet van with Missouri license 6FA 453. Anyone who sees the van is asked to call 911. Police warned people not to approach the van if they see it.

Police are speaking with the victim’s spouse to determine what happened. A car was heard speeding away immediately after the shooting. Investigators are also trying to determine if the victim had just walked his children to school prior to the shooting.

Police are canvassing the neighborhood.

“We’re hoping to get to the bottom of this and solve this case as we hope to solve every case,” Thompson said. “We need help. We can’t solve this alone.”

The death one of three homicides reported in Kansas City in the past 24 hours.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cooper barrett

Wrong, if you break into a secure area and my safety is compromised i can shoot...

You can't say wrong and then change the scenario. You're talking about something different than he is.

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by Eleazar

That's not the situation you described, you just said "on your property". Yeah, if you want to put the guy in arm's reach making an aggressive motion toward you it's different than shooting someone who's facing away from you.

They never said that all of the bullets that landed were in the back. How do you know he was retreating

Proof source? I'd call it that: Pickert: "There were five shell casings and three hits.

If you break down or scale my fence, come in my back yard, when you clearly know you are not suppose to be there. It's the same as being in my garage. If I walk around a corner, and find you, I can shoot you for making any motion towards me that compromised my feeling of security. If I suspect you have stolen something, I can protect that property and shoot you running away. This may not be true in MO but it is so in the 2 states I live in.*
* i am not a lawyer and this is not to be taken or construed as legal advise..

I shot a guy who was in a farm buildings who, upon seeing me, took off running, When I yelled "stop" he turned on me. An hour later the police left, the guy went to the hospital and i went inside and went to bed.

The next day, I offered not to press charges in turn for a release of liability. He signed, I left., Charges dropped

He went back and told his criminal friends not to **** with me or i would shoot their asses.

I have learned since to shoot them dead so i would probably hesitate, due to benefit of doubt, before shooting if the same circumstance were to confront me again.

[DaveNull]

But neither of these things justifies getting into your van in response to an alarm, not calling police, driving to the business and shooting whoever you find.

Call the cops. That's why we pay taxes.

And the fact that you reached a settlement doesn't mean that the law would have been on your side. It would have been up to a jury to decide whether you became the aggressor after he started to run away from you.

Until the advent of these "stand your ground" laws, there were more clear distinctions about what you could do depending on where they were on your property. Inside of your home was much different than someone in your yard or in an outbuilding.

The fact of the matter is, none of this shit justifies killing an attorney who represented a homeless man who lost his leg because some asshole with an assault rifle took the law into his own hands.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by cooper barrett

I have learned since to shoot them dead.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DaveNull

Call the cops. That's why we pay taxes.

If my dad had tried to "call the cops" when he was held at gunpoint in his driveway and then escorted by said gunman into his own ****ing home, he'd be ****ing DEAD, son.

Take personal responsibility for your life or be prepared to lose it.

[DaveNull]

Once again, that's a completely different situation.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DaveNull

Once again, that's a completely different situation.

The cops are no guarantee of anything. While you're waiting on them your ass might be getting gunned down.

What if you don't live in the city? When then, huh?

[|Zach|]

Ya but *tells some wild story that has nothing to do with the situation* what about that??

[DaveNull]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

The cops are no guarantee of anything. While you're waiting on them your ass might be getting gunned down.

What if you don't live in the city? When then, huh?

Cops would guarantee that you don't get sued by someone you shoot while they're fleeing your property. Cops guarantee that you carry deaths of a couple idiot kids on your conscience just because they were TPing the wrong house.

And if you don't live in the city, call the cops and hole up in your home. If they kick in the door ****ing throw that lead buddy. But don't go running out guns blazing like you're Charles Bronson.

[threebag]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

I'm not going to shoot the pizza delivery guy, moron.

Let's say it's 3 AM and I'm roused from my slumber by a racket out back.

I live a few blocks from Troost and I know there's a criminal element not too far off. So logically, I grab my gun before I go out to see what's happening.

There's a scummy-looking dude on my back porch rummaging around in my shit. He sees me open the back door, sticks his hand inside his jacket and makes a clear step towards me.

What do you suggest I do at that point? Run and hide under my ****ing bed?

Not under. It might make it harder for him to bind and gag you before he rips your asshole apart.

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by DaveNull

But neither of these things justifies getting into your van in response to an alarm, not calling police, driving to the business and shooting whoever you find. Call the cops. That's why we pay taxes.

No. His business is in a high crime thus high risk area. calling the POPO raises your insurance risk factor and therefor your rates. If your alarm goes off and there was not an actual break in you can be charged $350. When my alarms went off the my security company called me first and asked if the POPO should be contacted. I NEVER called the police to answer an alarm call. I always went to see if there was a problem first. I only found a broken window at the worst as the sirens always scared them off. Taking a legal gun with me was a given.
If you were to contact alarm companies they will tell you that most business alarms are tended by an owner or employee before calling the police.

And the fact that you reached a settlement doesn't mean that the law would have been on your side. It would have been up to a jury to decide whether you became the aggressor after he started to run away from you.

Until the advent of these "stand your ground" laws, there were more clear distinctions about what you could do depending on where they were on your property. Inside of your home was much different than someone in your yard or in an outbuilding.

NO, Every county handled it different, some might arrest you and never file charges, some just told you to go to bed and that the case will be reviewed by the sheriff and he will decided if it went to the prosecutor office. Then the prosecutor had to decide if the state wanted to charge him and to what degree. Knowing and supporting you sheriff and elected judges sure made this easier for some people more than others. Your probably referring to the stories that were told about "dragging the body into the house" that used to be told.

The fact of the matter is, none of this shit justifies killing an attorney who represented a homeless man who lost his leg because some asshole with an assault rifle took the law into his own hands.

Who said he shot him? Are you going to go all vigilante without facts to back it up? Are you rendering him guilty without facts to back it up? He must have had some dammed good reasons (alibi) as to why the POPO questioned, searched his house, and released him. The following day they posted an officer at his home as he went about his business..Why do you think they did that?. Do you know something about his guilt that the POPO don't?

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by threebag02

Not under. It might make it harder for him to bind and gag you before he rips your asshole apart.

threebag02,

You always know just the right words and you present them so elegantly. may I be so honored as to be allowed to bow before such greatness... without you trying to shove that twig, you call a dick, in my face?

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What about the judge and jury should they all be killed to because they found that old man scumbag responsible for his actions?

I have always been fascinated by people's behavior, but I am not obsessed by it unless it's a "you can't make this shit up" story. as it the recent KUMed litigation. The Pickert/ Jungerman story is one for the KC histoty books and I am going to follow it closely. just in case you haven't noticed.
This is how i see what the KCPD Is allowing us to know at the moment.

Jungerman Probably didn't shoot Pickert himself: who may have done this?

1- Someone who he knew (family, employee, friend, lover, or whatever) may have killed Pickert either for Jungerman's or their own benefit.
2- Someone that knew Jungerman and may have been harmed by him (someone who has had previous dealing with, who may have a reason to see his Jungerman's life destroyed) yes, think #1 too.
3- This one is the kicker and you will probably yell "bullshit" at first but hear me out. The killer could be someone who had dealings with Pickert, got their life/ career/ finances destroyed and blamed Pickert. It could be a BSC jealous lover/mistress or maybe the mistress's husband who wanted him out of the way.
Jungerman is the perfect patsy. The press jumped on Jungerman before the body was cold. Using Jungerman's van, taken from his driveway to commit a murder of a man knowing Jungerman would be immediately become the prime suspect was pure ****ing genious. The people Pickert sued were very well off, possibly well insured, intelligent people, who's lives were changed forever.


I can see such a person in any 3 groups committing this murder, A son or daughter*, (he has both but they are off the radar) loyal employee who Jungerman made rich, or his scorned lover, maybe someone who he befriended who saw Pichert's killing as a gift to Pungerman for repayment for what he had done for him. Any of them could have seen this opportunity to use killing Pickert as a way to get revenge what happened in the Harris case. A lost or greatly diminished inheritance... lost job w/ 2 mortgages, kid's college, pending divorce, possible bankruptcy, or just BSC are all reasons others have been murdered.

I doubt that someone would kill Pickert just because Jungernam had done them wrong ,but who knows. One might find comfort in knowing that Pungerman would die penny less because even the best trust will not hold up against Pickert's wife's and the 2 children's lawsuits if he was found guilty in criminal court.

it sure does make sense that someone that had their life destroyed by Picket would not care if Jungermans life was destroyed beyond recognition. They would see it as collateral damage. I can see where an intelligent, yet deranged, person could spend weeks waiting, scheming, for the right opportunity to come along to get rid of Pickert once and for all. If that person saw the news stories with Pickert and the $5.75M verdict, i can see him setting up Jungerman for a fall. Spending up to a couple of months setting up the perfect crime. Knowing that he would not even be thought of, no less put under the magnifying glass, in regards to the Pickert's murder.

#3 is a smart guy especially if he planned on the press jumping on the Jungerman is a criminal bandwagon. Name one news source who isn't painting Jungerman as a psychopath and Pinkert as a respected member of the community when this time last year it was probably the other way around. Pinkert was possibly a struggling atty, chasing ambulances, and surviving on his wifes salary. Where Jungerman was supporting the arts, furnishing jobs, and having others trying to steal what was his.

Put that in your bong and smoke it.

[Hammock Parties]

Cooper Barrett for n00b of the year.

[cooper barrett]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

And the judge? He could have thrown out the case or over turned the jury verdict. He didn't which means the plaintiffs had a legit case.

There has to be a reason to not hear the complaint, it was properly presented and followed the constraints of the law: A man lost a leg, a man shot the gun that caused it. Merit for the case to move forward so the judge allowed it. Attorneys spend a lot of time and effort courting the favor of chief judges to get cases in front of favorable judges such as Fahnestock who was an appointment of Gov Ray Blunt.

I have not found a case file that allows a MO judge to through out a verdict and there are monetary damage limits that i believed either were not followed or had an exception to the law as I understand it.

IMHO and from calls to others:This judge like most do not like "pro se" cases and in this case it was no different, Jungerman suffered at the hands of the judge and the jury was angered by all the disruptions in the courtroom hence the judgment amounts. Pickert used the pro se defense to his advantage like a pro.

Fahnestock received her undergraduate degree from William Woods College and then received her J.D. from the University of Missouri–Kansas City in 1994. Prior to becoming a judge, Fahnestock was an assistant U.S. attorney working in the civil division.