Rex Fowler - Everywhere, All the Time

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
The only one I see as a possbility in this case:

Colorado has the death penalty, if there was at least one aggravating factor:

Colorado Aggravating Factors For Capital Punishment

(6) The murder was committed to avoid or prevent arrest, to effect an escape, or to conceal the commission of a crime

"conceal the commission of a crime"

This would be a long shot. The prosecutor would have to somehow determine that

1) the money funneling to the Church was a crime
2) that there was potential that Ciancio knew this
3) that silencing Ciancio would cover up potential for the crime to be revealed

If the prosecution goes this far then the Church would have to be dragged into it because either:

1) they would be part of the crime and this would get deep.
2) the only one partaking in the criminal activity was Fowler but the presecution would have to prove it and the defense would have to defend under the premises that there is no crime, that all the "funneling" was legit and the Church would likely have to supply records to verify the defenses stance.

I'd love to see the defense take the stance that there was no crime but that Fowler was a highly packed pressurre cooker under stress to deliver donations to his Church.

This trial could get dang crazy if all the potentials come to light.

The Church could wind up in a damned if they support Fowler , damned if they don't scenario.

Rd00
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
To be honest, I think the law in Colorado goes just a bit overboard. By the above law you can shoot an unarmed person carrying a television out of your house (provided they broke in). You would then be immune to any criminal or civil charges. Contrary to popular belief, they can not sue you if they survive.

If the person is walking away wit hthe TV then it might be difficult to prove this part of that statute...

"...AND when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."

Unless the criminal had a string attached to his body and the other end of the string was attached to a hand grenade stuffed down the shirt of the occupant.

Rd00
 

Kathy (ImOut)

Gold Meritorious Patron
In Adams County in Colorado, you can holster a gun and carry it around with you on the street, so long as it is not concealed (you need a permit to conceal it). I had a (crazy) friend who did just that for a while with a 9mm Glock. Oddly enough he had it loaded with snap caps although it was legal for carry a full clip of hollow points with one in the chamber.

I told him it was reluctant you be seen with him when we were going out because of the gun. Eventually he stopped carrying it because it got too awkward getting looks from people on the street. Also, I guess, it is a big chunk of metal to carry around. Once in Kmart, some one called the police on him. The management didn´t want guns in the story but didn´t post any signs to that effect (I guess they thought it was obvious).

Also in Adams County, as long as you are not insane or a convicted felon, you can buy, sell, carry any gun you like.

There are only a few places you can't carry concealed in TX - 51% business, meaning they get 51% or more of their income from the sale of booze (there is one restaurant we go to that has the sign up) and churches. And you can only (to the best of my knowledge) carry concealed in TX. You're gun cannot be visible while carrying it - meaning you really shouldn't even have a bulge where it is located (such as if wearing a shoulder harness and the outline can be seen thru your clothing).
 

Kathy (ImOut)

Gold Meritorious Patron
They might not be wise, but they are sneaky. What if the objective is to get money out of the US, for something that will never actually be built, in order to launder money into overseas accounts?

Well I say, good luck to the prosecutor that's going to take on that forensic accounting.
 

Div6

Crusader
The only one I see as a possbility in this case:



"conceal the commission of a crime"

This would be a long shot. The prosecutor would have to somehow determine that

1) the money funneling to the Church was a crime
2) that there was potential that Ciancio knew this
3) that silencing Ciancio would cover up potential for the crime to be revealed

If the prosecution goes this far then the Church would have to be dragged into it because either:

1) they would be part of the crime and this would get deep.
2) the only one partaking in the criminal activity was Fowler but the presecution would have to prove it and the defense would have to defend under the premises that there is no crime, that all the "funneling" was legit and the Church would likely have to supply records to verify the defenses stance.

I'd love to see the defense take the stance that there was no crime but that Fowler was a highly packed pressurre cooker under stress to deliver donations to his Church.

This trial could get dang crazy if all the potentials come to light.

The Church could wind up in a damned if they support Fowler , damned if they don't scenario.

Rd00

I think its a bit of a stretch.....the case seems pretty much open and shut, without having to go for a death penalty in the sentencing phase.

Besides, putting him to death is what he wanted....life in prison would be a more fitting punishment. Give him time to get his head together and write up his account of events that lead this "mighty ot" to kill another, in direct violation of the creed of the organization he claimed to be a member of.....
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
"conceal the commission of a crime"
Not a 'crime'.. Murder to protect Scientology's redicoulous public image! - To avoid a bad PR scene!

So that it would become public knowledge that OT7 Rex Fowler was unable to say no to the cult's registrars.. He could not say no even when he couldn't afford services. He bankrupted his own company.. All because scientology's registrars 'persuaded' him.

Of course his 'handling' of the situation didn't work. It'll all come out now.. In media all over the world.

And that 'inexplicable' and suspicious power that scientology has over it's adherents.. To make them sacrifice their money, life and children.. That will be put under scrutiny too!

Looks like mind control...

:yes:
 

Div6

Crusader
Not a 'crime'.. Murder to protect Scientology's redicoulous public image! - To avoid a bad PR scene!

So that it would become public knowledge that OT7 Rex Fowler was unable to say no to the cult's registrars.. He could not say no even when he couldn't afford services. He bankrupted his own company.. All because scientology's registrars 'persuaded' him.

Of course his 'handling' of the situation didn't work. It'll all come out now.. In media all over the world.

And that 'inexplicable' and suspicious power that scientology has over it's adherents.. To make them sacrifice their money, life and children.. That will be put under scrutiny too!

Looks like mind control...

:yes:

Which raises an interesting question: Are the Registrars Accessories to Murder 1?

How many reg cycles were you in where they said "what would you do if you had a gun to your head?"
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
The law varies from state to state in the US. A growing number of states have passed "Castle Doctrine" laws, which create the presumption that any intruder forcibly entering your home can be assumed to intend great harm to the residents, and may be stopped with deadly force. In such a case, the prosecutor has the burden of proving that it was NOT self-defense. And neither the criminal nor criminal's family may sue for injuries or death inflicted on the criminal.

Go visit the "Shoot out at the ESMB Corral" thread in "Off topics" for the running discussion.

NSW (Oz) has a similar "Castle Law", but for those few who are allowed to own a firearm, the lockdown restrictions are so ridiculous that in the case of a genuine home-invasion you would be dead before you even get access to your weapon--I suggest people learn the fine art of Kebab Skewer Throwing.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
NSW (Oz) has a similar "Castle Law", but for those few who are allowed to own a firearm, the lockdown restrictions are so ridiculous that in the case of a genuine home-invasion you would be dead before you even get access to your weapon--I suggest people learn the fine art of Kebab Skewer Throwing.

Since I have kids, I tend to keep the guns locked up. But I do have a whole bunch of decorative (but fully functional, carbon steel) swords around the house. In a close-quarters combat situation, a good blade can be just as effective as a gun.
 

smartone

My Own Boss
Not in California. This is why I say, if you live in California and your home is invaded (burglars), offer them cookies and milk and offer to help them. Because if you try to defend yourself or your property, you are likely to end up in jail if you kill or injure the criminal.

Now in TX, we have the Castle Law, which means we can protect our home, our vehicle and our place of work. And the Dallas Police are currently on a mission to get more citizens involved with protecting themselves.

TX sounds a lot saner to me :thumbsup:
 

Kathy (ImOut)

Gold Meritorious Patron
TX sounds a lot saner to me :thumbsup:

Yes, that's partly why we moved here - sanity. And a great economy even in these trying times. For me, living in Texas, there really isn't any sign of a bad economy. We have new buildings going up all over the place.
 

smartone

My Own Boss
To be honest, I think the law in Colorado goes just a bit overboard. By the above law you can shoot an unarmed person carrying a television out of your house (provided they broke in). You would then be immune to any criminal or civil charges. Contrary to popular belief, they can not sue you if they survive.

Interesting. I don't think I would shoot to kill if that's the case, just pop one in the extremities to teach the burglar a lesson. However, if my life was in danger I would shoot to kill.

Mind you, when I was in the US and someone gave me a gun, my legs went like jelly just holding it. So a lot of good I would be trying to aim a gun and end up in a heap on the floor. :eyeroll:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Mind you, when I was in the US and someone gave me a gun, my legs went like jelly just holding it. So a lot of good I would be trying to aim a gun and end up in a heap on the floor. :eyeroll:

That's what all the practice is for. (Shooting at paper targets, not people).

Paul
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The general theme on gun ownership runs contrary to what people get from movie/TV. Don't point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot. Don't shoot unless you intend to kill. That may sound extreme and even superficial, but, there's a lot of very real thought behind it. Unlike what you may see in fiction, *any* shot may end up killing someone. It doesn't mean that you have no freedom of judgment, but, if you do shoot at someone, you should know it *may* kill them, so, it's better to have that in mind. Shooting cigarettes out of people's mouths is not a good anti-smoking policy. If you think you need to shoot someone in the leg to keep them from running over and killing you; shoot at the biggest target. Guns are not scientific or clinical.

Zinj
 

smartone

My Own Boss
The general theme on gun ownership runs contrary to what people get from movie/TV. Don't point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot. Don't shoot unless you intend to kill. That may sound extreme and even superficial, but, there's a lot of very real thought behind it. Unlike what you may see in fiction, *any* shot may end up killing someone. It doesn't mean that you have no freedom of judgment, but, if you do shoot at someone, you should know it *may* kill them, so, it's better to have that in mind. Shooting cigarettes out of people's mouths is not a good anti-smoking policy. If you think you need to shoot someone in the leg to keep them from running over and killing you; shoot at the biggest target. Guns are not scientific or clinical.

Zinj

:lol:
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Interesting. I don't think I would shoot to kill if that's the case, just pop one in the extremities to teach the burglar a lesson. However, if my life was in danger I would shoot to kill.

Mind you, when I was in the US and someone gave me a gun, my legs went like jelly just holding it. So a lot of good I would be trying to aim a gun and end up in a heap on the floor. :eyeroll:

It's MUCH harder then you think to hit somebody in the extremities, even for an expert marksman. Especially when you consider your target is not cooperating by standing still like a good little boy, but is dodging to actively avoid you hitting him.

In a real world situation, you aim for center of mass and hope you hit.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
There are plenty of stories of even trained and experienced opposing soldiers encountering each other at very short range, firing lots of rounds, and not hitting each other. And there is a lot of clinical evidence for the episodes that don't make it into stories, where the wrong guys get shot just because they're closer than the enemy.

In the panic of suddenly having to kill or be killed, the legs going to jelly thing doesn't necessarily go away with practice. The good guys in the movies always shoot straight, because they're the good guys in the movies. The doofy storm troopers who can never hit anything are actually the realistic part.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Aim at a leg with this and you'll probably be OK:

normal_work041.jpg


But, duck really quick

Zinj
 
Top