A 3D recreation of events show the moment when Brian Aitken was forced to defend himself.

Even in cases of clear self-defense, lawful firearms owners can find themselves on the wrong end of the legal gun. That’s when their lives depend on a great legal defense team.

Nobody thinks they’re the bad guy. And fortunately, for most of us, we aren’t. 

We simply want to go about our lives, make a decent living, eat well, live in a nice home and enjoy quality time with our family and friends. But sometimes, a situation arises, a person or people show up who want to disrupt that harmony, and it forces us to respond, oftentimes on their ugly terms. 

Think of a situation where a purse snatcher runs up on a woman who must now struggle to keep her belongings from being stolen or herself harmed, a carjacker who approaches a stopped car with a family inside or something as simple as a disagreement over work or money that escalates to a physical attack. For those people who legally carry a handgun for self-defense, in extreme cases, they can find themselves forced to make that potentially life-altering decision on whether or not to use deadly force to defend themselves. But what’s the alternative? Allow criminals or violent attackers to decide your fate?

That was the situation in which Telluride, Colorado, resident Brian Aitken found himself in November 2021, following an altercation with local contractor Andrew Montalvo. Montalvo allegedly began beating on Aitken, knocking him from his front step to the ground. Aitken, who is physically smaller than his aggressor and was lying injured in his yard as the attack continued, was forced to finally draw the handgun he was legally carrying and fire a single shot that struck Montalvo and immediately ended the attack.

It was then that Aitken’s real ordeal began. 

While Aitken felt he was fully justified in his actions and had no other options to stop the violence and possibly save his own life, local law enforcement and the judicial system felt otherwise. Aitken soon found himself facing multiple charges including attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree assault causing serious bodily injury and prohibited use of a firearm and reckless endangerment. That was all from firing a single shot in self-defense.

It was the start of a legal nightmare that would grind through the courts for more than two and a half years and cast the specter of a life behind bars upon Aitken, who is married and at the time, had a young son and an eight-month-old daughter. He and his wife Jenna have since had another daughter. 

Fortunately for Brian Aitken, he is a member of U.S. LawShield. And that made all the difference.

Brian Aitken

The Incident

It all began when a home renovation in Telluride went awry. The Aitkens’ flooring contractor, Montalvo, subcontracted the work to an elderly gentleman, which caused a three-month delay. Montalvo then directed the Aitkens to hire another contractor to assist. That November morning, despite paying the full bid amount, less than half the work had been completed and Montalvo demanded a waiver to release him from liability as winter approached. When the Aitkens refused, Montalvo sent text messages stating he intended to keep all the money and quit. He then called Aitken where the brief, heated conversation ended with Aitken instructing Montalvo to have his subcontractor retrieve his tools and for Montalvo to stay away from his house and family. 

But Montalvo didn’t listen. He defied Aitken’s request and showed up uninvited, leading to the confrontation.

According to Doug Richards, an Independent Program Attorney for U.S. LawShield in Colorado and Aitken’s defense attorney, the homeowner arrived at his house to meet another contractor, only to be met by the furious flooring contractor. The exchange quickly escalated, and Aitken, standing on his front step repeatedly ordered Montalvo to leave his property. Instead, Montalvo attempted to push past Aitken and enter the house, which lead to the physical confrontation on the steps of the residence. Montalvo attacked Aitken, punching him several times and throwing him to the ground. With his attacker looming over him, injured and fearing for his life, Aitken drew his concealed firearm and shot Montalvo, who later admitted in court to ignoring Aitken’s repeated demands to leave. He even admitted to law enforcement officers that day, as well as to the jury when the case went to court, that he had initiated the attack.

The 3D recreation based off physical evidence and eyewitness and personal accounts shows the moment just before Brian Aitken was knocked all the way to the ground and forced to defend himself with his handgun.

Conflicting Accounts

The contractor claimed that during the fight, he saw Aitken pull out a pistol, prompting him to turn and flee before being shot from behind. A key eyewitness, another contractor at the scene, provided a somewhat corroborative account, observing Aitken standing with his gun in a “low ready” position after the shot was fired. However, crucial forensic evidence was missing – the bullet was never recovered by police – complicating the case further.

Aitken’s defense team led by Richards, after interviewing Aitken and examining the evidence themselves, argued that he had fired the shot while on the ground, aiming upwards at the contractor who was standing over him. This trajectory would explain the missing bullet, which would not have been found on the ground as initially expected. The prosecution’s version suggested a straight or downward trajectory, contradicting Aitken’s description of events.

“The police never found the spent round. They found a shell casing, but they never found the bullet,” says Richards. “The bullet should have been there if this guy was telling the truth.”

Attorney Doug Richards

Building the Defense

Richards and his team meticulously built Aitken’s defense, bringing in a host of experts to support their case. A forensic pathologist testified that the wound’s trajectory was consistent with an upward shot from the ground. A scene reconstruction expert used advanced photogrammetry techniques to create a 3D rendering of the incident, providing a visual aid to support Aitken’s version of events during the trial. The defense also conducted two intense, life-like mock trials to explore how their arguments would play out before a jury before facing real juries in two different trials.

The first trial, set for July 31, 2023, began under intense local scrutiny. Telluride, a quaint and liberal Colorado town known more for its world-class skiing, scenic views and high-end shops, was already predisposed against Aitken, who had moved to the area from New York. This bias was evident during jury selection, with many potential jurors being dismissed due to their preconceived opinions or connections to the case. Adding to the bias, local law enforcement had made false statements on social media, inaccurately claiming that Aitken had been charged with premeditated attempted murder. These statements were widely parroted across social media and in the news, and despite being incorrect, they have never been corrected and remain public today. Many potential jurors had even experienced a school lockdown that November day triggered by the incident, either as a parent of a student or as a student themselves.

“We did questionnaires prior to jury selection, so the judge sent out questionnaires to the jury,” says Richards. “They summoned three hundred people. One hundred and five showed up, and out of those one hundred and five that did the questionnaires, like twenty-two could have potentially maybe have been put through the jury selection process.”

Mock trials, such as this one from the program Suits, isn’t just for television drama but serve as a valuable tool for real-world lawyers in preparing for trial. (Photo courtesy of USA Network)

Judicial Controversies

Compounding the defense’s challenges was a series of judicial controversies as well. The judge in the case had had children at a nearby school that went into lockdown during the incident. Bodycam footage revealed that Judge Keri Yoder had sent her courtroom deputy to the scene and received nonpublic information about the situation, a fact she did not disclose.

Then the judicial aspects of the case took an even stranger turn.

“We subpoenaed a bunch of stuff from the town, and the town attorney swoops in…there’s only a town attorney and an assistant town attorney…but their office moved to quash our subpoena,” says Richards. After all of that, then suddenly, the town attorney recused himself from the litigation, but didn’t say why.

“It turns out the town attorney is married to the judge,” Richards said. The two have different last names so the relationship wasn’t apparent. That was also something the judge had failed to disclose. Armed with this news, Richards argued for a change of venue.

Judicial Recusal and Venue Change

A motion to recuse Judge Yoder was filed, supported by declarations from legal ethics experts, including a former Attorney Regulation Counsel for the Colorado Supreme Court. Initially resistant, Judge Yoder eventually recused herself after the motion and declarations were filed. The case was then assigned to Judge Mary Deganhart, who presided over the pretrial conference.

Judge Deganhart ordered a jury questionnaire to assess whether Aitken could receive a fair trial in Telluride. The overwhelmingly negative responses led to a mistrial and a successful motion to change the venue to Montrose, Colorado, a more firearm-friendly jurisdiction. This move was pivotal, as Montrose residents were less likely to hold an anti-gun bias compared to those in Telluride. They were also less likely to be familiar with the case, so could approach it with a more open mind, a quality crucial to seating a fair jury.

Trials and Defense Strategy

The second trial in Montrose began on January 22, 2024, featuring expert testimonies that supported Aitken’s self-defense claim. A forensic pathologist, a use-of-force expert, a scene reconstruction expert and a firearms expert all corroborated Aitken’s version of events. They demonstrated that Montalvo was likely 36 to 48 inches from Aitken when the shot was fired, and that the shot had an upward trajectory, consistent with Aitken firing from the ground.

After a six-day trial and two days of deliberations, the jury acquitted Aitken of attempted second-degree murder and were reportedly hung, 10-2 in favor of a complete acquittal on three other charges related to the use of a firearm and causing bodily injury. The jury’s confusion over the varying theories presented by the prosecution – ranging from intentional harm to reckless endangerment – played a significant role in the deadlock. In their overzealous attempt to heap charges on Aitken for a single bullet fired in self-defense, they had muddied the waters so badly, the jury couldn’t make sense of it.

“It’s like they presented three totally different theories,” Richards says. “So, the jury was incredibly confused by it. I let them have it in the closing arguments about what a mess their case was.”

In addition to plainly presenting the details of the event, the defense team even used some of the city’s own witnesses to support their arguments.

“We always try to go with the grain on a lot of the evidence,” says Madalia Maaliki, another attorney on the defense team with Richards. As an example, Maaliki noted how the prosecution made a big fuss about the Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensic analyst and what he found, but then never actually put him on the stand.

“All they relied upon for their whole case was eyewitness testimony and cops that had since been fired,” Maaliki says. “We actually put on their expert who did the testing for distance on the gun. To us it was like, why are they hiding from the science? Obviously, it doesn’t support what they want you to believe, and so I think we gained a lot of credibility with the jury calling their witnesses. At the end of the day, the science doesn’t lie.” 

Final Resolution

In preparation for a third trial, the prosecution streamlined its strategy, focusing solely on a charge of second-degree assault with a theory of recklessly causing serious bodily injury. This charge still clearly conflicted with Aitken’s self-defense claim, which argued an intentional act of self-preservation. There was nothing reckless about his actions.

However, this change in approach by the prosecution forced the defense team to completely retool their strategy. 

“This was like defending a whole new case,” Richards says. It required the defense to completely start over. Trial preparation for this third trial included conducting another mock trial to see how their arguments would play with a jury.

Recognizing the unpredictable nature of jury trials themselves, the prosecution began dangling the possibility of plea offers in front of Aitken. The homeowner and his defense team also recognized Aitken potentially faced a minimum of five years in prison if he were to be convicted as a result of this new theory. In response, his defense team negotiated an excellent and almost “unheard of” plea deal for their client. Aitken entered a no contest plea to Prohibited Use of a Weapon-Discharging a Firearm, a Class 2 misdemeanor, resulting in one year of unsupervised probation. It was an incredible plea deal for Aitken given all that he had been facing, though the terms included forfeiting his firearm, surrendering his expired Pennsylvania Concealed Handgun Permit and agreeing not to seek a new permit during probation.

As typically plays out in criminal prosecutions, one or both parties oftentimes file civil suits as well. Montalvo was no different in that he filed a $5 million suit against Aitken for shooting him. That case was also recently settled for a small sum of money so Aitken could close the final chapter of this ordeal. Now, he can finally tell his side of the story.

Brian Aitken is the CEO of Topple, a digital advertising platform designed to promote free speech.

“It was tough not being able to tell people my side of what happened, but it could’ve been used against me in the trial, so I couldn’t say anything,” Aitken says. “I just want everyone to know my side of the story finally.” In fact, Aitken says at the time of the incident, he offered to provide a statement to police with his lawyer present, but investigators weren’t interested in what he had to say if his attorney was there. To this day, more than three years later, he says, “law enforcement still hasn’t taken a statement from me about what happened that day.”

Aitken and his family moved to England to help grow his online company, Topple, in the United Kingdom and the European Union. Topple is billed as “a free-speech digital advertising platform” for everyone, including the firearms industry. With his exoneration of the primary charges against him and his court matters settled, Aitken and his family are looking to move back to the U.S. to be closer to family and Aitken’s American customers. 

Aitken may be a familiar name to some in the gun community. Prior to this trial, Aitken gained fame among the gun crowd in 2009 after he was sentenced in New Jersey to seven years in prison for “illegally” possessing firearms that he actually legally owned and that were locked and unloaded in the trunk of his car while he was in the process of moving from one house to another. Two of the three convictions were later overturned and dismissed by the appellate court, which found the jury should have been informed of federal and state law that allows lawful gun owners to transport firearms while moving. However, the court upheld the conviction for transporting ammunition, as there is no exemption in New Jersey law that allows for the transporting of hollow-point ammunition between one house and another while moving. This “nonsensical” law as Aitken calls it, requires citizens to dispose of their lawfully owned ammunition before moving. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie pardoned Aitken for that charge in 2018 after already commuting his sentence earlier. Aitken wrote a book about that experience called The Blue Tent Sky: How the Left’s War on Guns Cost Me My Son and My Freedom.

Grateful

It was after that original court battle that Aitken met acclaimed firearms attorney, Evan Nappen, who is also an Independent Program Attorney for U.S. LawShield and who Aitken credits as being an incredible attorney. It is from that association that Aitken became a member of U.S. LawShield and learned of its benefits.

“I admit, I never thought I was going to need this,” Aitken says about being a part of the U.S. LawShield family. Even after his first incident. “Now that I have needed it, I don’t know how anyone in a similar situation would be able to defend themselves without it. There’s no way I could’ve afforded the defense I received and avoided prison.”

Aitken goes on to say, “A person shouldn’t have to decide between, ‘Can I afford this or can I save my life?’ The reality is you are treated as if you are guilty, and they will try to prove it until you are bankrupt.”

Despite all that happened, Aitken isn’t sour on life in Telluride. He hopes to return there to live with his wife and children because they love the town and they love skiing. At the time he was first interviewed, he had just returned from a ski trip with his five-year-old son.

“I’m so grateful. I’m sitting here free, and I get to be with my children and my wife every day,” he says, reflecting on what could have been. 

“It was a terrifying situation, but I’m generally an optimistic person. I never thought this wasn’t going to work out, especially after I met Doug and Madalia and the team at Richards Carrington who are working with U.S. LawShield. These guys were the best,” he says. “Every day is an absolute blessing. Every day I get to see my kids smiling, it’s really an absolute blessing.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

42 COMMENTS

  1. I belonged to US LawShield for a few years, until learning last year that LawShield transitioned from pre-paid legal services, into an insurance company; I dropped them immediately.

    Why?

    Insurance is about re-imbursing one for loss. Every insurance contract declares it does not cover illegal acts. While every gun owner should have some sort of legal protection, insurance companies are within their rights to do legal analysis to determine of the policy holder is likely to prevail in court; pre-paid legal services are designed to protect actions of the client; no mini-trial is conducted by the law firm to determine if the client is eligible for legal services.

    Whether through insurance, or pre-paid services, get some kind of coverage (personal liability insurance is also a good thing to have).

    NOTE: in some states, being acquitted of a defensive shooting is not a block against civil suit (even if the law prevents it), unless and until the DA signs a formal closure of the case, following the verdict. Until that happens, one may still be under threat of a civil suit.

    Apologies for the length of this comment.

    • Sam I Am, you are at least partially incorrect on your reply. First, in the spirit of transparency, the ownership of U.S. LawShield is also affiliated with TTAG. U.S. LawShield has also always been regulated as insurance in most of the states where they operate due to each state’s individual regulations. However, it still operates the same as it always has. When you join U.S. LawShield, you have a dedicated attorney in your state that you have 24/7/365 emergency access to. The direct emergency hotline number on your membership card is answered by the attorney so attorney client privilege kicks in immediately and that attorney can immediately guide you. There is nothing you have to be reimbursed for because your membership covers your legal costs. You don’t pay anything out of pocket so you may have got rid of a good product to buy a product where that could actually be the case. Not sure. But with U.S. LawShield, you pay your dues and that’s it. Again, you don’t spend money out of pocket and then wait to be reimbursed. It doesn’t work like that.

      Like any service, they can still decline covering legal costs in situations where you went out and blatantly murder someone, where you are in the commission of other crimes when the self defense occurs, or as is most often the case, your membership is lapsed or you sign up “after” an incident. But aside from that, they cover pretty much every other scenario that is a case of legitimate self-defense, along with many other gun-related charges where an otherwise lawful gun owner member is trying to follow the law. I just wanted to clear up that misunderstanding. You are 100 percent right in that whether it is U.S. LawShield or some other similar service, gun owners are wise to research their options, read the fine print and choose the one that is best for them as Mr. Aitken’s story clearly attests.

      You are also right in that just because you aren’t found guilty in a criminal court, that they can’t come after you civilly. That also happened to Mr. Aitken, where it worked out okay. Didn’t work out so well for O.J. LawShield covers both criminal and civil just for the record. Thanks for weighing in on the story though and thanks for reading TTAG.

      • Thanx for the response.

        As it stands, insurance companies cannot protect/cover illegal actions.

        When first engaging LawShield, I was told, point blank, that LawShield was not an insurance company. Not claiming someone was lying, but what I saw on the website did not declare USLS was insurance. (Also, I have never seen anything claiming USLS conducted mini-trials before deciding to provide service, but have when investigating other insurance companies.)

        My response was in reference to finally uncovering information that USLS was an insurance company. I did/do not recommend people ignore, or drop USLS; anything is better than nothing. I do encourage informed shopping, for everyone.

        • “Had an issue involving firearms, and my well known FL firearm attorney uses and recommends USLS.”

          As noted, some kind of protection is infinitely better than no kind of protection.

      • I think Sam’s point (or one of them) is that, for instance, if Mr. Aitken had been found guilty of any of the charges, then U.S. LawShield may have attempted to recover the expenses incurred while representing him. Would that have been true in Aitken’s case, and would it be true today? Is it illegal to receive an insurance benefit as the result of having committed a crime?

        • If Mr. Aitken would have been found guilty, he would have been simply that guilty, and there would be no recourse for them to recover expenses incurred. That’s not how it works. If they felt some aggravating factors were at play, such as a US LawShield member going over his ex’s house and starting an argument and getting violent and then shooting her boyfriend when he tries to kick him out of the house, they could potentially decline to cover the case in the first point, but they couldn’t represent the member and then want money back because they lost the case. As for the whether something is technically defined or operated as insurance vs. pre-paid legal services, I don’t know it that well enough to speak authoritatively on the matter. But I will try to find out an an answer for you all from someone who can.

        • These are all very good questions by the way. Something every gun owner should certainly ask when choosing the best option for them.

    • “Insurance is about re-imbursing one for loss. Every insurance contract declares it does not cover illegal acts. While every gun owner should have some sort of legal protection, insurance companies are within their rights to do legal analysis to determine of the policy holder is likely to prevail in court”

      You are talking the difference between just representation and ‘insured representation’.

      Every insurance does not cover illegal acts because its a law in all 50 states that an insurance can’t cover illegal acts.

      Its the same with other representation not insurance, but the difference is the other firm not insurance is paying for it where in an insurance plan the insurance is paying for it.

      I think a lot of people have misinterpreted this ‘section’ of the ‘self-defense’ insurance based plans. If you read the plan carefully you will find a concept or wording indicating ‘good faith’ – basically, as long as one can assert and the attorney can assert, truthfully, in ‘good faith’ the need for their defense action the insurance will continue to cover it, no one at the insurance company is just going ‘hmmm…we don’t think they can prevail so lets drop them’. The insurance behind the plan is legally bound to cover you as long as that truthful ‘good faith’ justification exists up to the end of very final appeal even if that appeal is to SCOTUS, no matter how many previous appeals a person may have lost or even if found guilty in the original case.

      An example case was the case USCCA had: The lady claimed it was self defense, USCCA started covering her, had already paid $50,000.00. But evidence was discovered that showed she had lied in claiming her benefits under the insurance, and had actually premeditated murder and had joined USCCA shortly before the crime so she could claim self defense and have them cover it. In other words she had defrauded USCCA, and the insurance had no other choice but to drop her as her fraud was an illegal act. USCCA dropped her. It was claimed the USCCA insurance dropped her because she was found guilty – that’s not true, she was dropped because she had defrauded USCCA in claiming her benefits, and the law does not allow an insurance to cover an illegal act so they had no choice but to drop her. She was not dropped because she was found guilty of the murder charge like others claimed. And believe it or not, the non-insurance plans would have dropped her too under the same circumstances because their defense cost actually comes out of the firms pockets and they don’t like paying for being defrauded and can’t perpetrate or facilitate a fraud upon the court, and one is still required to have the same truthful ‘good faith’ justification to claim and use the benefits of the non-insurance plan.

      • clarification for: “Every insurance does not cover illegal acts because its a law in all 50 states that an insurance can’t cover illegal acts.”

        meaning illegal acts by the insured person.

        • “…insurance does not cover illegal acts because its a law in all 50 states…”

          Precisely.

      • “Insurance is about re-imbursing one for loss.”

        you are confusing ‘liability’ or ‘property type’ or ‘life type’ insurances with personal defense type insurances (e.g Law Shield, USCCA, etc…). The defense type insurances are not like those.

        The personal defense type insurances are about defending you.

        The others like life, property, liability are about monetarily ‘compensating’ and may in some cases involve a defense of some type to defend the insurance company against paying out.

      • “Its the same with other representation not insurance,…”

        Not quite. A law firm cannot be punished for, nor prevented from, representing someone accused, or convicted of a crime.

        However, as Doug Howlett pointed out, every gun owner should research their situation, and obtain the protection/coverage suitable for them.

        • “Not quite. A law firm cannot be punished for, nor prevented from, representing someone accused, or convicted of a crime.”

          never said they could be. I said they could not perpetrate or facilitate a fraud upon the court …. and for that if they do they can be punished.

          • “I said they could not perpetrate or facilitate a fraud upon the court …. and for that if they do they can be punished.”

            Agree. I lost the string on the interaction, and did not remember you writing anything regarding fraud on the court.

      • A point: ” If you read the plan carefully you will find a concept or wording indicating ‘good faith”

        If your personal plan is insurance based (e.g. USLS, USCCA, etc…) or non-insurance based (e.g. Attorneys on Retainer) – for both types – there is the thing of ‘good faith’. Under either type of coverage (insurance of not insurance) the ‘covered’ person and the attorney must be able to truthfully assert in ‘good faith’ the need for their specific defense action for coverage to be enacted and continue.

        Take a close look at the plans.

        Not picking on Attorneys on Retainer, but to use them as an example and not saying this is exactly how they do and they are a good choice too if that’s the way you want to go, but just as an example to show a major difference between insurance and non-insurance plans that can happen: The AOR program is a law firm agreement, NOT an insurance policy or prepaid legal plan. And that makes a difference. In a ‘law firm agreement’ plan for a specific ‘type’ of specialized coverage (and self-defense is a specific type of specialized coverage vs a general criminal/civil representation) the coverage can only extend as far as the agreement allows for the specific coverage IF the ‘covered’ person and the attorney are able to truthfully assert in ‘good faith’ the need for the covered persons specific defense action. But other items not dealing with the covered persons specific defense action (e.g. ‘discharging a gun in a public place’) the covered person may need to pay for out of pocket at a percentage of the normal attorney rate (e.g. for AOR its 35% of their normal attorney rate) – not that AOR would do this, but just as an example. (in the AOR plan they tell you this: “Additional non-self-defense legal matters at 35% off the attorney’s hourly rate.” – if you encounter this type of thing question it and find out exactly what it means in the firms use of the concept and not what you think it means – “non-self-defense legal matters” are matters that are not the specific defense action e.g. ancillary charges)

        This is contrasted to all leading insurance based plans where such a charge (e.g. the example ‘discharge in a public place’) is treated as part of the specific covered persons specific defense action and would be covered under the insurance.

        non-insurance plans: Law firms are ‘specific instance’ focused and when you get outside that specific instance zone with ancillary charges for acts that were necessary to enact the self-defense a law firm can tend to want you to pay out of pocket at some rate for defense to include the ancillary charges even though the ancillary charges are for acts that were necessary to enact the ‘good faith’ valid self-defense.

        insurance based plans (e.g. USCCA etc…): These cover the person and not just the specific instance act, so ancillary charges for acts that were necessary to enact the self-defense are still covered.

        So which ever way you go for your coverage – read the plans carefully, ask questions, contact them with your questions and get exact answers and not vague answers, understand the wording and terms used in their written coverage and understand the agreement you are entering into. IGNORE THE YOUTUBE INFLUENCERS CLAIMS HOW ONE PLAN IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER – IGNORE THE CLAIMS BY PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET (YES, SOME OF THEM ARE EVEN ATTORNEYS) ABOUT HOW AN INSURANCE OR LAW FIRM DROPPED COVERAGE FOR THIS OR THAT PERSON BECAUSE THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY (hint, there is no present day insurance based ‘self-defense’ plan where the insurance company behind the plan has dropped anyone because they were found guilty by some bs prosecution for the covered persons valid self-defense act)

  2. Unfortunately; there was a witness so he couldn’t utilize the legal strategy of Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up.

    • Haha. That makes for a great bumper sticker Elmer, but I have to say with cell phone tracking technology, the prevalence of video cameras and the insane ability of DNA analysis, that is a horrible legal strategy…even out in the sticks where you are still slightly more likely to get away with it than in a city. But hey, to each his own…

        • And yet a myriad # of murders & mayhem are never “solved” in places like Chiraq. It’s almost like the Dims try to justify their existence. Yeah that’s it!🙄😧Oh CC insurance. Try to avoid using yer gat. All I got(in another life I sold insurance).

      • Back when the folks at the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting section were still compiling statistics (last year for which reports were released was 2019), the clearance rate for homicide had dropped to barely fifty percent. This includes homicides that are “cleared by extraordinary means.”. The simple fact of the matter is that unless you murder a family member, are caught at the scene of the killing, or there are witnesses at the scene who know who you are, your chances of being identified are very small.

        To be blunt, after having an imbecile judge give my marijuana bootlegging tenant a free pass for shooting at my son then one of the local drunken rednecks given a slap on the wrist for shooting at my pregnant daughter-in-law, I have zero respect for the courts. Judge Ladd Wiles might be forgiven for being distracted and distraught because the eviction hearing was concurrent with the disbarment proceedings by the Oregon Bar Association for committing perjury about her extramarital affair with a subordinate at the US Attorney’s office. (It really wasn’t drug abuse because Bill Clinton didn’t inhale and it really wasn’t adultery because Amanda S Marshall just like Monica Lewinsky didn’t swallow.”) Judge Wiles pretended to be to stupid to understand that the production and trafficking of marijuana remains a Federal felony. Judge Wiles also feigned ignorance of the fact that a 12 gauge shotgun is a deadly weapon up to a mile away depending on ammunition. Judge Cynthia Easterday gave one of the local drunken rednecks a free pass for shooting at my pregnant daughter-in-law because she is to stupid to understand that a bolt action rifle chambered in 300 Winchester Magnum is a deadly weapon. Rumor has it that she was swayed by the argument that at least it wasn’t an AR-15.

  4. “Allow criminals or violent attackers to decide your fate?”

    According to one, now-ex, rabidly anti-gun person who used to make it her life’s mission here locally to harass gun owners and used to work with anti-gun groups and even Watts the high-priestest of the anti-gun crowd…the answer to the question is … “Yes, we would prefer you die rather than use a gun to defend your self or anyone else.”

    that was then…very short version: after she got a dose of reality by facing certain death at the hands of her multiple attackers, and being saved by a local gun owner who by chance just happen to have made a wrong turn that night… she became a gun owner and staunch 2A advocate and defender.

    (I told her story here once before but recently related it at SNW if someone wants the more complete version where I recently related it again > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/08/17/personal-defense-tip-drop-it-like-its-hot/#comment-7924)

      • Lol I remember that being a thing in Compton and several other cities for a while with the various Mexican and Salvadoran gangs. If history repeats it will get bad enough the feds will need to step in to prevent a small scale genocide.

      • Wrong type of empowered woman.

        And you know it.

        Get on board, there are still premium seats available on the cattle cars.

  8. It seems they went after him hard because he got out of the new Jersey rap and was reknown for it.

    • Definitely could’ve played a part, but Telluride is also a super lib area so probably would’ve went hard on him either way. Of course, if it was the local who shot the homeowner, you do have to wonder…

  9. Low tax conservative colorado was invaded by the so.ciali.st pr.og.ressi.ve drug le.g@liz.@tion crowd from California.
    They made pot legal and took away the civil rights of the state residents.

    But you can still enjoy that “rocky mountain high” when ever you want to.

  10. Mistake number one-paying a contractor in full before the job is done. Who does that? Why would you do it? If he should require it, it’s a sign that you should find someone else.

  12. Meta Bans Gun Content: Gold Medal Skeet Shooter Censored. (I guess Meta’s ‘social media’ isn’t for everyone after all like they claim. Its only for people who’s ‘speech’ they like. And I’m still surprised to find pro-2A sites like TTAG still have the tracking and links to Meta called ‘facebook’ or use facebook)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2foJhyk0I

Comments are closed.