One of God's own prototypes
This is proof positive that alcohol, lawnmowers, and shotguns make you ugly. Let the grass grow long!
US man cuffed for executing lawnmower
A Milwaukee man faces up to six years and three months in chokey and a maximum fine of $11k for blasting his lawnmower with a shotgun after the machine ill-advisedly refused to start, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. Police mugshot of Keith Walendowski Keith Walendowski, 56, (pictured) had apparently had a few ales …
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:20 GMT Paul Segrue
@Sam
Hate to point this out.... (although to be honest I dont.... its been one of those days at work)
"had apparently had a few ales when"
unless Ale is now no longer booze then I think Alcohol was mentioned.
Anyway who hasn't thought about taking a shotgun to a piece of machinery/equipment of some kind... or even the person using the machinery/equipment.... or thier boss... ok wow... it must be medication time for me then!
-
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:20 GMT Phil Holden
A Child and His Lawnmower
Some clown in Sacramento was dragged into court
He shot his lawnmower
It disobeyed, it wouldn't start
Might makes right, it's the American way
They fined him $60 and sent him on his way
You know, some people don't take no shit
Maybe if they did they'd have half a brain left
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Just shotgunned an old server I was rebuilding...
...and yes I am drunk @ 8:33 AM on a Monday.
As a native of Milwaukee and having 50% of our last names in common (W + half the alphabet + ski) , I am SURE he had already let the grass grow long and was trying to chop it down grass that was already way too long.
Perhaps he should have tried to style his hair with either the lawnmower or the shotgun instead?
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Disco Inferno
"Alcohol? Where?"
This is why I write my comments with one eye on the present day, and one eye on posterity. A hundred years from now, when people look back at this news story, they will read my words and conclude that I was unusually perceptive. "My eyes point ahead, away from the ghosts of the dead."
-
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:30 GMT Kimo
And another thing...
...you'll note the jail time and fine are not for shooting a lawn mower (which is illegal in most city limits, but allowed in rural areas). He was found to be in possession of a a "shortened rifle or shotgun" aka a sawed-off shotgun (or "sawn-off shotgun" for those old-school grammatical felons among you)
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
He did it wrong
Everyone knows that inorder to repair any item of equipment for household/lawn/general DIY maintenance, one must start with a small hammer [ok not a glass hammer which is made of rubber :)] then work up to the handy 1lb [453 592.37 milligram] going through the various gauges until you get to the ol' reliable Sledge hammer. If that fails to solve your problem, one way or another, THEN you get your shotgun. DUH
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
Duh! (Re: He did it wrong)
Hey, Mr Coward,
first up, your title should have been "He done it wrong", second up, "a glass hammer which is made of rubber". You sure are stoopid boy -- it's a glass hammer... glass hammer... so what's it made out of? I bet y'all think that a wood shack is made of bricks.
Ma, fetch my gun. This cotton-pickin "Post Comment" button done broke down agin.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 14:57 GMT John Bayly
@Tim (Right to bear arms)
2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How did this ever get translated to "every nutjob can buy themselves a firearm", personally I see it as "if you're part of a militia (one that's well regulated) you can bear arms". Admittedly, this was overruled in 2008 in favour of "here, have a gun".
It was important at the time, but can you honestly say it's now necessary to own an automatic rifle "protect yourself"?
-
Monday 28th July 2008 15:10 GMT Dale Harrison
Six years !!
Someone alluded to his sentence but six years for just this? He didn't kill anyone and he might be a bit wacky (and, I may point out, in a country that is very free with guns anyway) but surely this is overkill - or should I pun - mowerkill.
I don't really take much notice of US sentences so I can't compare this to a child molester or anything. I do note that the British legal system is almost as stupid. Drop some litter and you get 3 months jail. Rape someone and you get a couple of years and get out early anyway.
<FinalRant>
I also love it when they use the term "life" and they say - but must at least serve a minimum of ten years. I remember seeing a report on an 18 year old in this situation. So he's 28 and back on the streets. Really pisses me off.
</FinalRant>
-
Monday 28th July 2008 15:10 GMT Lukin Brewer
Not what he did, but who he was(n't).
If the perpetrator had been another cop, or the mayor, or Dick Cheney, the cops would have said "So it just wouldn't start, Keith/sir/Mr Vice President? Yeah, hate it when that happens, too." Of course, with Vice Presidents, the degree of latitude extends all the way to winging of hunting partners (and beyond).
-
-
Monday 28th July 2008 15:47 GMT Blinkstr
Yeah hokaaay...
What got him taken 'downtown' in the first place was the fact he fired a weapon within city limits. Once the cops got there they found that the weapon he fired was a Sawed off shotgun (VERY illegal in the states). They took his ignorant butt to jail.
Once they got him to jail they probably did a breathalyser and found that he was drunk as well.
IMHO, he got what he deserved and he's getting of pretty easy. NOTHING good can come from a drunk guy with a weapon that can spray ammo in wide patches for quite a bit of distance.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 16:08 GMT Kimo
"The right to bare arms?...
What's next...are they going to regulate our sleeve length."
The constitution does recognize there is a limitation on owning arms (so far, but the courts are changing this). Most NRA types like to forget that the entire sentence includes the bit about a "well-regulated militia." When the Supreme Court last visited the issue of sawed-off shotguns (nearly a century ago, so we are talking about a much more liberal court), they upheld a ban on certain concealable weapons because the National Guard (our well-regulated militia) specifically forbid their use by active personnel.
Mine's the one with...um...two pipes and a board in the pocket. Yeah, that's it. Definitely not a sawn-off shotgun...
-
Monday 28th July 2008 17:10 GMT Andy Bright
@John Bayly
Actually it could be interpreted as meaning, in order to establish said militia everyone has the right to own a gun. However...
Even if you do take that more liberal meaning of the wording, the writers of the Constitution built in a mechanism for changing things when they go past their sell by date. Namely "Amendments to the Constitution".
And you'll note there were indeed quite a few of them, as was originally intended. Quite clever really, to realise that a current set of laws and protections might not always be relevant. Or is that.. quite obvious.
So even if you take this little part of the Constitution to mean "Here, have a gun" the Government has every right to change it or even remove it completely.
It's one of the reasons we have a Government.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 18:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
yes, he was stupid
BUT...
(1) the right to keep and bear arms goes all the way back to the Revolution when the (then) king and his minions offered to kindly dis-arm the colonials so as to suppress them further. The founding fathers recognized that the citizens (then and now) may have need of arms to remove an oppressive government. Thanks to our fore-fathers for that far-reaching thoughtfulness. You may want to consider your own un-armed state with your current stasi government.
(2) he was most likely in violation of local law in discharging a firearm within city limits. In the country, where I live, I can legally shoot all day long and the state and county government have NO say in the matter.
(3) he was in violation of federal law which had been passed a long time ago regulating barrel length on "long" guns. I am not passing judgement on this. they also regulate possession of fully automatic weapons.
(4) i am curious as to what they were doing in his house and why they would have stolen/confiscated other property legally owned there. Illegal search and seizure comes to mind.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 18:18 GMT JC
Crazy Punishment
In the US of A we don't go around imprisoning people without some very important (to US) reason.
That reason is that it's ok to own deadly weapons but only CERTAIN TYPES. There's no sport in killing if you have an unfair advantage against an unarmed lawnmower.
If the fellow had been brighter, he might've said the lawnmower was a disguised terrorist conceiling a fuel bomb, then he'd have been a hero.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 18:18 GMT USA IT, where it all started
Rage against the Machine
I can't believe no one has mentioned the ROTM angle! Clearly, this was a case of a brave human fighting against a vicious machine that was illegally conspiring to make his grass tall. Obviously, it was self defense, but now that he is caught up in the cogs of the "legal machine", our freedom fighter may just learn what Rage against the Machine is all about.
Seriously though, he's in trouble for discharging a weapon inside city limits (prohibited) and possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18.5" (VERY illegal). Had he lived in the sticks, and shot it with a legal weapon, we wouldn't be having this discussion - it really would be a case of his yard, his mower.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 18:23 GMT RRRoamer
what ever...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How did this ever get translated to "every nutjob can buy themselves a firearm", personally I see it as "if you're part of a militia (one that's well regulated) you can bear arms". Admittedly, this was overruled in 2008 in favour of "here, have a gun".
It always amazes me when people read the second amendment and totally overlook two very important things:
1) The "Bill of Rights" (aka: first 10 amendments) was completely about the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS. There isn't one single amendment in there that guarantees a right to any level of government. Period.
2) Did you even READ the second part of that amendment??? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." THE RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall NOT be INFRINGED. Is that so very hard to read? Pull up your dictionary (an old hardback please) and look up "infringed" if you REALLY want to get the pulse up.
Do just a TINY bit of research on the debates the founding fathers had while preparing the Bill of Rights.
Hell, most of the debate was around "Hell, EVERYONE knows these are basic rights given by GOD. If we put them into the Constitution, some DUMB ASS 200 years from now will actually decide that WE gave them those rights and then try to limit them!"
It still amazes me how many people can read the Constitution and then selectively translate it to mean what they want. The read the 1st amendment and some how translate that into banning God from everything (along with creating the whole "separation of Church and State", a phrase that appears NO WHERE in the Constitution in any form!) as well as somehow create a right to privacy that is then used to allow pretty much anything these people want to do. At the same time, these same folks are completely able to totally IGNORE the 10th amendment (powers reserved for the States and people) while creating Federal bureaucracies that have NO possible allowance in the Constitution.
I'll be the first one to admit that there are things in the Constitution I don't like. I personally feel the 17th amendment (Senators are directly elected by the populace instead of being appointed by the States) was the single biggest mistake this country ever made. But I don't go around and try to convince other people that it doesn't mean what it says! Too bad the left isn't so liberal in there own attitudes and understanding of the Constitution.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 19:26 GMT Michael
Not so much...
The man wasn't charged for shooting his mower. He was charged for "possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle and disorderly conduct". In most areas, it's illegal to possess a sawed-off shotgun, under the notion that desiring the increase in the spread would only be useful in an anti-personnel capacity. As for the disorderly conduct, he was probably shouting obscenities and generally disturbing the peace.
The government isn't saying you can't shoot your lawnmower. They're saying you can't do it with an illegal gun, and you can't be a nuisance to others. Only newsworthy for the humor of a man "putting down" his lawn equipment, and not for the "damned government stripping us of our rights" wackos.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 20:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
Daniel, hammers and svastikas
"Now all we need to wait for is which costume our slave masters will put on next: a hammer and sickle, or a swastika?"
Or maybe a red dot, or a green crescent, or a white cross? My money is still on the star'n stripes costume... yeah, definitely.
Or maybe your comparison just doesn't work for the tiny unimportant portion of the world population that happens NOT to live in the US of A? The hammer and sickle happened to be the representation of labour and hard work (which is maybe why it was so hated by... an unnamed large imperialist state) and the svastika was the symbol of the sun in some unamed extinct civilisation, they therefore are both ambiguous and can't be used to depict pure evil. The stars and stripes, on the other hand...*
Not that the remark would be justified in this case anyway: he would have faced trouble if he had used a nuke, too (or maybe not, but for purely technical reasons). I don't think that the lawnmower was a problem in this particular case. Owning an illegal piece o'weaponry, and using it in town, might be the key. As stated in the article.
* I would have suggested the blue flag with stars in a circle, but it's not unambiguous, and I wouldn't dare to defy the Catholic church and its newly-acquired intergalactic allies.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 20:37 GMT StopthePropaganda
too bad he wasn't an Official Minority
then he coulda got off the hook with a fine and claimed it was part of his "culture" to blow things up, get drunk and abuse his wife, whatever his "homeland" allows.
Mexicans firing guns downtown to celebrate their Cinco de Mayo and the worst punishment was confiscation of the firearms and threat (which wasn't carried out) of deportation for illegals.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 20:37 GMT Kimo
50%=F
Have you read the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment? The founding Fathers linked Militia and Arms by putting them into one sentence. They also threw in that bit about the security of the State. Only after listing two organizations did they they grant the people the right to bear arms. There are limits in the first half of the sentence that must be read as applying to the second half. No government, no matter how democratic (and the original US of A was anything but) would allow citizens to overthrow it. The whole model of our government is based on checks and balances.
Selective reading is only acknowledging half of a sentence. If any of my students turn in a paper or answer that is only 50% correct, the get an F.
-
Monday 28th July 2008 22:45 GMT Dan Paul
@Kimo 50%=F
I hate to correct you but one of the major reasons why we here in the USA HAVE the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the existing government from taking away our other rights. Kind of tough to do now with only SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons and no privately owned functioning tanks (sigh, we'll figure something out soon)
Yes, it DOES mean that the average citizen is supposed to help and/or initiate the overthrow of an unjust government (just like the one we had in the early 1700's). Read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about having a revolution every 20 years or so.
By the way, the US Supreme Court just re-validated the 2nd amendment, citing it was an INDIVIDUALS RIGHT to BEAR ARMS, not just in the circumstance of a militia.
I find it rather funny that you Brit's either have never been taught this or your "Nanny State" has completely censored your education.
Either way, your own criminals can scare you to death with nothing more than pocket knives because not even your policemen can carry guns.
Here, our grannies have Glocks in their purses and our criminals think twice before trying to use a knife. We have a saying here, If you ban citizens from owning guns, only the criminals will have them. Rather sounds like the UK now doesn't it?
As for statistics, we have more people here, thus more nutjobs, thus more gun crime than you have in the UK. But then if criminals can kill you with a pocket knife, why waste bullets?
However, I would rather have gun toting nutjobs than not have the right to prevent Darth Cheney, King George Bush and "McBane " declaring martial law (based on some trumped up terrorism scare no doubt) to prevent Osama from taking the Presidency this coming January.
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 01:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
@dan paul
Ya know Dan we residents of civilised coutnries(Those that have test cricket teams) have mostly never even seen a gun in public, and we like it that way. Strangely, we reckon that criminals are more likely to carry guns if they think the public will be armed. Guess what- we have lower gun crime rates too, shocking eh?
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 01:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
you're all missing the point...
I, for one, welcome our new non-starting, mechanical overlords.
As one who has had the satisfaction of using a little explosive/projectile persuasion on an electronic device, I can tell you from personal and practical experience that "the defendant" was a blooming idiot.
1) Generally, weapons and alcohol aren't a good mix.
2) Weapons fired inside a city's corporation limit usually mean a rather rude visit by a bunch of uninvited law enforcement types.
3) Sawed off anything, as applied to firearms, is stupid, dangerous and ineffective on anything further than 5m away.
4) Before dispatching an ill tempered stubborn lawn mower, I'd suggest that prior to said activities, you take it to a qualified maintenance professional, if he suggests last rites, then have at it.
5) If you're going to dispatch said lawn mower, do it sober, so your judgement (and aim) isn't impaired.
6) Choose the right fucking weapon for the job! I'm sorry, but only a panzy-assed loser would use a shotgun on a cast iron & aluminium machine. To truly get through to the device, use something with a little more "umph"; I'd suggest something in the 30-06 range. While a 12 gage slug will damage a mower fairly efficiently, I'm telling you that for an optimum effect, you need a full metal jacket round.
Jeez, you'd figure someone from the northern part of the country would have a little more common sense, when contemplating lawn equipment assassination. Hell, I live in Ohio and I at least had the common sense to use an AK-47 to perform a mercy killing on an HP iPAQ 5550 cell phone, that dropped one too many calls. It took one round, and there wasn't anything left larger than a quarter. I did it in a controlled field, with nobody around for several thousand yards and I hadn't cracked any of the celebratory ale until after the weapon was safe and secure.
The really funny thing is that the bastard rang when I shot it, and it was simply the most liberating thing I've ever done in my life.
Mine's the one that doubles as a flack jacket
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 03:32 GMT lglethal
The attack of the grass-munching attack droids has been thwarted!
This man should be given a medal for his heroic defence of the planet earth from a suprise attack by the grass munching attack droids of the planet Victa. They have secretly been planning they're stealth infiltration attack on the Earth for many years now but luckily this brave soldier spotted the evil attack droid that had replaced his dependable mower and dispatched it without delay.
Congratulations to that man...
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 03:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
civili[sz]ed countries
"civilised coutnries(Those that have test cricket teams) have mostly never even seen a gun in public"
Don't the British cricket teams regularly get waxed by those from the subcontinent? And isn't gun ownership quite widespread in Pakistan and India?
@Dan: Thomas Jefferson's commitment to permanent revolution was more or less rhetorical. He didn't like it a blind bit when Burr was fooling around out west, or when northern New England took up wholesale smuggling in response to the embargo.
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 08:07 GMT Eugene Goodrich
Remedial law-abiding training
He went to jail for being an idiot. That's roughly how it works 'round here, and I don't doubt in plenty of other places.
The smarter of us know that when shooting a lawn mower, or anything else, to bits, you:
1. take the mower and gun to where it's legal to discharge firearms recreationally
2. use a firearm that is not banned, stolen, otherwise illegally owned, illegally modified, etc.
3. do so while not drunk (this being dangerous and, coincidentally, illegal in these parts - even where discharging firearms recreationally is legal)
4. take special care that the chunks of lawn mower and bullet won't hit someone, such as yourself
And, ideally,
5. pick up the bits so they can be placed in the trash and/or recycling when you get back home. No need to make a mess just because a mower needs to go.
People just need to think these things through more thoroughly. I guess the man pictured wasn't one of those thinker types.
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 08:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Dan Paul
>We have a saying here, If you ban citizens from owning guns, only the
>criminals will have them. Rather sounds like the UK now doesn't it?
Well, the police as well. Thing is criminals don't have guns, because to get one you have to do something significantly more challenging that pinching an old ladies handbag.
>As for statistics, we have more people here, thus more nutjobs, thus
>more gun crime than you have in the UK.
You could look at the per-capita rate? The UK is still one of the safest places
in the world in terms of murder.
Consider how few "postal" incidents we get in the UK and how much less severe they are when they happen.
Regarding the constitution, the right to keep & bear arms has been infringed, you can't have your own nuke for instance, and no-one would think you should.
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 15:47 GMT Tim Robson
Re: lots of people
@Jesse, RE: Right to bear arms
No, states and cities cannot infringe on the constitution. That's the point- it's the code everyone is supposed to work within. There are means for revising it, but every jurisdiction beneath it must stay within the boundaries it sets forth.
That means that technically, you can challenge any law set forth by any jurisdiction in the US, be it Federal, State, County, or City, as unconstitutional, and win. You just have to be able to prove that it is, and be willing to fight for it.
@Yes, he was stupid
"(4) i am curious as to what they were doing in his house and why they would have stolen/confiscated other property legally owned there. Illegal search and seizure comes to mind."
They probably went into his house on a search warrant, on the grounds that since he had used one illegal weapon, what if he had more?
@Dan Paul: @Kimo 50%=F
"I hate to correct you but one of the major reasons why we here in the USA HAVE the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the existing government from taking away our other rights. Kind of tough to do now with only SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons and no privately owned functioning tanks (sigh, we'll figure something out soon)"
I know at least one guy with a functioning tank. Main gun works, too. Admittedly, it's a WWII antique, but the thing works fine, and according to NY State law, (where he has said tank) he can actually legally purchase ammunition for it and fire it...provided the ammo is incendiary, making it a giant flare gun.
Personally, i think he deserved what he got- if not more. I don't like extensive restrictions on what you can own, but there are some categories that have only one purpose, that being anti-personnel. A pistol you can take to the range and do target shooting with, but a sawed-off doesn't really add anything to the experience at the range that a regular shotgun wouldn't work for.
One other thing people overlook with the recent Supreme Court ruling: it says you can't be stopped from owning pistols with a blanket prohibition. However, it DOES say that you can be stopped for other reasons, such as criminal record or mental illness. In addition, it says that you can be required to submit information to own a gun, such as fingerprints, and that you can be required to register all guns with the government. States currently have a mix of rules on this, some (such as NY) requiring a permit to even own pistols, and making you jump through references and other hoops to get it, while in others, such as Florida, you can own damn near anything you want, it seems, so long as it's not prohibited at the federal level. Even getting a carry-conceal for a pistol is as simple as giving them your finger prints and a small fee that covers your criminal records check and your mental health background check.
"Less guns = less gun crime (FACT)"
That only works in an area that does not have guns. Somewhere like the US, where we already have plenty of guns around, that will fail because the criminals already have access to the guns. In most US jurisdictions that introduce more lenient gun laws, (at least those that I've seen records for) the violent crime rates, in particular for gun crime, tend to drop. Why? Well, that's because the police aren't there to protect in most cases, they're there to clean up afterwards. Hell, lots of them will admit this, especially in most Criminal Justice classes.
What's going to stop more crime: no legal guns on people, and lots of cops who get there too late, or legal guns on 1 out of every 10 people, and lots of cops who get there too late?
Flame because I know people are going to hit me for this one.
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 19:22 GMT John F***ing Stepp
Taking a sawed off to an explosives fight.
'course that would have left a divot in the yard; a lawnmower coming down from high altitude in pieces (MIRVED) and a lot more fun (alcohol really enhances that.)
But they have restricted use of dynamite here in the states and really; homemade explosives are a bad idea (no link because that would be illegal and hazardous to your health.)
Perhaps some wag can do us up with a video game; _Lawnmower Liquidation_ to tide us over these troubled times.
The final boss can be Lawn Boy.
-
Tuesday 29th July 2008 19:22 GMT Keith Williams
@dan paul
"I hate to correct you but one of the major reasons why we here in the USA HAVE the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the existing government from taking away our other rights. Kind of tough to do now with only SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons and no privately owned functioning tanks (sigh, we'll figure something out soon)"
So why haven't you already overthrown your current government which violates so many constitutional prohibitons as to render it useless.?
Additionally, at one time "Well-Regulated" apparantly also meant "Well-Equiped"
The alien, cause the whole thing is alien to me.
-
Wednesday 30th July 2008 09:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Yanks
Ok, so the constitution comes top. A nuclear bomb is an 'arm'. You're not allowed to have one. On what grounds?
Re: Explosives restrictions
You can buy filling for shotgun cartridges a good fistful should take out a lawnmower.
Actually you can even buy that in Blighty (with a gun licence of course).
And it's "sawn off" not "sawed-off, it's a stupid as using "seed" instead of "seen".
(That was just to get Sam going.. ;) )
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
