Betting between friends

[william_brasky]

Man shoots friend over $20 football bet

LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) - A man fatally shot his friend with a high-powered rifle in a dispute over a $20 bet on the South Carolina-Clemson football game, authorities said Sunday.

James Walter Quick, 42, was charged with murder in the shooting of Richard Allen Johnson, 43. Johnson died from a single shot to the chest, according to a preliminary autopsy Sunday.

The two had bet $20 on the annual game, with Quick taking South Carolina, which won 31-28, and Johnson taking Clemson, Lexington County Sheriff James Metts said. They drank beer all afternoon and watched the game Saturday at Johnson's home, and began arguing about the bet after the game.

Metts said Quick went to his car, got the rifle he normally uses for hunting and fired one shot, hitting Johnson in the chest. Deputies arrested Quick.

Quick was being held Sunday in the Lexington County jail, awaiting a bail hearing. The sheriff's department said he did not yet have a lawyer.

[TexasSooner01]

I bet he goes to prison for murder.

[soonernation]

I bet he goes to prison for murder.

I take that for 20.

[TexasSooner01]

I take that for 20.

Do you own a gun? ;)

[VeeJay]

My God!

What if they'd bet FIFTY dollars?

[Boomer.....]

I bet $20 that they live in trailers.

[OhU1]

This guy?
http://tinyurl.com/yxzrga

[85Sooner]

Yeah, a guy at work bet me 100$ with 5 to 1 odds that texas would not lose three games this year. Funny, he hasn't mentioned it yet. I figure I'll give it a week or so. I usually don't bet on 18year olds but 500-my 100 was a bet that jsut could not be avoided. we will see if it is paid.

[Okla-homey]

Its a very underrated rivalry. Its HUGE in SC.

My bro-in-law lives in this tiny town in SC that has one grocery store. He's a Carolina fan and is used to going in after the game and getting "gloated" on by all the Clemson people. He always went anyway because, well, it's the only store in town.

This year it's different. The guy who owns the store is sad Clemson lost this year because the Clemson people, unused to losing, are too ashamed to come in and its hurting his business. Honestly.

[VeeJay]

I will never forget the sign I saw posted at a Clemson-USC game back in the 80's when Charley Pell was coaching at Clemson:

"Pell's Pu**ies Can't Lick Our Cocks Through Four Periods."

When I lived in Charlotte I befriended some Clemson people. There is a major hatred there between those two.

[tbl]

Yeah, a guy at work bet me 100$ with 5 to 1 odds that texas would not lose three games this year. Funny, he hasn't mentioned it yet. I figure I'll give it a week or so. I usually don't bet on 18year olds but 500-my 100 was a bet that jsut could not be avoided. we will see if it is paid.
click-click

[Jerk]

I wonder what kind of rifle it was?

30'06 will easily dispose of a friend with one shot.

[sanantoniosooner]

A UT fan from Austin still owes me a lunch from 4 years ago.

I may have to shoot him.

[soonernation]

Do you own a gun? ;)

several.:D

[85Sooner]

Its a very underrated rivalry. Its HUGE in SC.

My bro-in-law lives in this tiny town in SC that has one grocery store. He's a Carolina fan and is used to going in after the game and getting "gloated" on by all the Clemson people. He always went anyway because, well, it's the only store in town.

This year it's different. The guy who owns the store is sad Clemson lost this year because the Clemson people, unused to losing, are too ashamed to come in and its hurting his business. Honestly.

No doubt our business is down due to the longhorns losing. Now we just have to hope the Cowboys keep rolling.

[BoogercountySooner]

Heh look at their last names! Quick & Johnson! Quick took the Cocks and Johnson took the Pu$$ies for 20! There is a moral to this story. What is it?

[Osce0la]

I bet $20 that they live in trailers.
I saw the story on the news last night...They do indeed live in trailers (either that or very run down redneck homes).

[Pricetag]

This is why homeowners should have the right to prohibit firearms on their property.

[sanantoniosooner]

This is why homeowners should have the right to prohibit firearms on their property.
The rifle was out in his truck. He went to get it.

[Jerk]

This is why homeowners should have the right to prohibit firearms on their property.

Who says they can't?

[skycat]

I'd kill any one of you for a frozen Snickers bar.

[olevetonahill]

This is why homeowners should have the right to prohibit firearms on their property.
He shoots the friend over a 20 buck bet , And you think the dude that got shot would have been able to tell this bozo that he cant have a gun in his truck, get real

[TexasLidig8r]

Man shoots Rival over avatar football bet

Dallas, TX (AP) - A man fatally shot his rival with a high-powered rifle in a dispute over an avatar bet on the Texas - Oklahoma football game, authorities said Sunday.

GDC, 42, was charged with murder in the shooting of TexasLidig8r, 48. Lid died from multiple shots to the chest, according to a preliminary autopsy Sunday.

The two had bet a change in avatar on the annual game, with Lid taking Texas, which won 45 - 12, and GDC taking Oklahoma. Dallas County Sheriff, Whitey McWhiteman said. They drank beer, and Lid drank Maker's Mark all afternoon and watched the game live from the Cotton Bowl, and began arguing about the bet after the game.

GDC went to his truck, got the rifle he normally uses for hunting and fired multiple shots, hitting Lid in the chest. Deputies arrested GDC and then baned him.

GDC was being held Sunday in the Dallas County jail, awaiting a bail hearing. The sheriff's department said he did not yet have a lawyer.

I had to. :D

[Vaevictis]

Who says they can't?

I think he was referring to the OK law that states that you cannot prohibit people from bringing firearms onto your property as long as the firearm remains in their vehicle, and their vehicle remains in a space set aside for parking:

"No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle."

(According to my understanding, however, a federal judge has issued a TRO preventing enforcement of the law pending the outcome of a lawsuit.)

[Jerk]

I think he was referring to the OK law that states that you cannot prohibit people from bringing firearms onto your property as long as the firearm remains in their vehicle, and their vehicle remains in a space set aside for parking:

"No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle."

(According to my understanding, however, a federal judge has issued a TRO preventing enforcement of the law pending the outcome of a lawsuit.)

Yeah, Homey had a discussion about this earlier in the year.

You always have the right not to allow someone to park in your own private drive-way.

I really don't see how this is even an issue here. I doubt the victim in this case had any clue what was about to happen.

Believe me, someone can't just come on to private property with a firearm like "pricetag" is suggesting if the owner doesn't want him there.

Vaevictus - do you believe that employers should be able to search through an employee's car just because it's parked on their property? I see my car as an extension of my home...and I remember what Weyerhaeuser did very well- and I wouldn't work for those nazi c***ks***rs if they were the last employer in the state. I wouldn't p!ss on one of them basterds if they were beside the road on fire.

[Okla-homey]

I think he was referring to the OK law that states that you cannot prohibit people from bringing firearms onto your property as long as the firearm remains in their vehicle, and their vehicle remains in a space set aside for parking:

"No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle."

(According to my understanding, however, a federal judge has issued a TRO preventing enforcement of the law pending the outcome of a lawsuit.)

That is correct. It just so happens, I turned in 51 flippin' pages on that very subject yesterday. The case is Williams Co's. v. Henry. It was originally stiled, Whirlpool Co. v. Henry, but Whirlpool later withdrew and the Williams Co's have taken up the torch. It's filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Bottomline, the law, as you've accurately stated it, is just land use regulation by the legislature and does not constitute a "taking" as the plaintiffs allege in their complaint.

I predict, the law will be upheld at the district court level and will survive any appeal. The weight of federal "takings" jurisprudence, since 1937, is just too solidly weighted towards giving very broad deference to the acts of an elected legislature accountable to the people at the ballot box.

Moreover, the notion of "economic substantive due process" is pretty much a dead letter. IOW, if it involves your property, the state can do pretty much whatever it wants as long as it's willing to pay you if the court finds the state action has deprived you of an entire property right. As an aside, that's why the state can take your property under eminent domain and turn it over to a private investor if it chooses.

In the Williams case, plaintiffs allege their "right to exclude" is utterly extinguished by the law. I say, balderdash. They can still exclude anyone they want, just not on the basis of whether they have a gun in their car. That's just infringement of a property right, and that's simply not compensable under any takings analysis.

I think Scalia said it best when he recently stated, "Everything we might think is stupid is not necessarily unconstitutional."

[Vaevictis]

Vaevictus - do you believe that employers should be able to search through an employee's car just because it's parked on their property?

Do I think that individuals and companies should be able to ban firearms on their property (including parking lots, locked in cars)? Yes.

Do I think that individuals and companies should be able to search your car (or your person) for anything -- firearms or otherwise?

A little more complicated, but generally, if they have reason to believe someone is in immediate danger, sure. Otherwise, no. (Note that if they have no reason, or if they're wrong, they should incur civil liability, in my opinion.)