hazel wrote on May 2, 2007 5:44 PM:
" There does not seem to be very much real evidence against Mr. Jones. Like the store owner saying the robber was facing him when he fired the gun. Mr. Jones has no such wound. It appears that Mr. Jones is being tried in the media. "
To: Hero??? wrote on Mar 30, 2007 7:37 PM:
" Good riddence. Go feel bad somewhere else... "
To: he shot the guy in the back wrote on Mar 30, 2007 7:36 PM:
" Too back he didn't get him in the head. One less worthless meat head to bother the rest of us. If you feel so bad for the criminal, we should house him at your place. Since the bleeding hearts feel these losers should be given every break, we need to start by giving the person who is feeling bad about the way the criminal is treated the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are. Its only fair... "
Hero??? wrote on Mar 30, 2007 3:24 PM:
" WOW I guess I need to move out of a town where the people think a Guy shoting a man in the back is a Hero WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Thank god he did not miss and hit someone else(then he would be a Hero who missed) again WOW !!!!!!!! "
Mr. Ahrens needs to go to the range and practice( H. Jardon) wrote on Mar 30, 2007 2:55 PM:
" Why on earth he didnt take a headshot is beyond me. "
What's it matter? wrote on Mar 30, 2007 2:29 PM:
" Sure, he shot him in the back, so what? Without him shooting at all, let alone injuring the guy, there would be no leads whatsoever as to who did the robbery, Think about it people, Ahrens is a hero. Aim higher next time though. "
Too bad he didnt kill him ( Vincent Gallo) wrote on Mar 30, 2007 1:38 PM:
" Would of saved us taxpayers a ton of money on court costs and the eventual re-incarceration of this derilict. Mr Ahrens and other business owners would behoove us all in the future by buying hollow point ammo. "
ACLU wrote on Mar 30, 2007 11:47 AM:
" I like me "
ACLU wrote on Mar 30, 2007 11:39 AM:
" This is an obvious violation of this robbers civil rights. He was shot merely for having a different set of values than the majority. We need to take a step back and show some tolerance for his alternative lifestyle. After all, when certain groups file lawsuits and go after people who pray in public or display religious symbols in public, they only want them to stop, and in some cases jailed. They don't usually shoot them. "
Lost Guns wrote on Mar 30, 2007 11:17 AM:
" Did the police take Ahrens gun after the shooting and did they ever give them back to him? "
if... wrote on Mar 30, 2007 11:16 AM:
" the robber gets off because of an "improper search" that would literally be the lamest thing... he tried to rob a store for crying out loud! "
he shot the guy in the back wrote on Mar 30, 2007 10:58 AM:
" Not the criminal, should get away, but your hero, shot the guy in the back. "
Frank Schnurstein wrote on Mar 30, 2007 10:25 AM:
" Jim, usually when the threat of violence is past and the agressor is leaving the scene, you are not supposed to shoot him. An unfortunate law that gives people like Jones an opportunity to escape justice. I am very happy for the decision not to charge Ahrens. It's too bad Phelps is already making noise like Jones wasn't there and his rights were abused. I can only hope for a guilty verdict and the maximum penalty for all three stooges in this case. "
To: Jim wrote on Mar 30, 2007 10:20 AM:
" I'm with Jim all the way "
Not fair wrote on Mar 30, 2007 9:31 AM:
" I suppose Mr. Ahrens had to hire a lawyer to defend himself and incure costs after being the victim. The "robber" will be given a public defender and probably get off with a slap on the wrist. I can't believe that they would waste taxpayer money for a grand jury for this. An honest man trying to make an honest living and he has to defend himself twice. Once from the robber and then from the prosecutor. "
To wrote on Mar 30, 2007 9:21 AM:
" None of us were there. Rather than having an emotional reaction based on what's been printed in the paper, the grand jury can get the real facts, and make a more logical decision.
That's how our system is supposed to work, not mob justice or vigilante justice. Now we know for sure that his actions were appropriate. "
West End, not Wild West wrote on Mar 30, 2007 9:16 AM:
" From what I've read he shot the robber *in the back.* I'm sure there's some charges that could have fit if it wasn't justified.
Even though I've always felt it was probably justified, I'm glad the grand jury looked into it just to be sure. Like the article said, the grand jury is the conscoius of the community. They would of got to look at the evidence that's not in the paper.
Think about the waste of taxpayer money if there was a full jury trial. "
sad wrote on Mar 30, 2007 9:15 AM:
" I can't even believe that they were considering bringing charges against the owner! Bill is a good man and the only thing he did wrong was that he didn't shoot better! I'm sure this criminal will try to come back and sue him for his injuries and knowing the judicial system, Bill will be held accountable. How sad! "
anonymous wrote on Mar 30, 2007 8:35 AM:
" This man defended his own property from an armed robber. Why would anyone want to charge him for anything? Wouldn't you do the same? The County Attorney's office needs to get a life and stop abusing its power and wasting the taxpayer's money. Ridiculous! "
medal ? are you crazy!!!! wrote on Mar 30, 2007 8:11 AM:
" What if he would have missed the man and hit a child looking out the window of the house accross the street. What gives him the right to put anyone else in danger, He shot a man in the back not much of a hero to me...... "
We wrote on Mar 30, 2007 7:57 AM:
" need to impeach Maclean. "
TCB wrote on Mar 30, 2007 7:57 AM:
" A huge step in the reduction of crime in Winona and area! I know there are many who would like to see this decision reversed, but they need to put themselves in a place where their life was saved by stopping this criminal. Congratulations to the members of this Jury! "
There have to be checks and balances wrote on Mar 30, 2007 7:20 AM:
" I don't know why the Grand Jury was involved, but in such cases as this, police must fully investigate because there's a fine line between self defense and an illegal action. It is not always a cut-and-dried case of self defense. If there were no checks and balances, people could get rid of "enemies", then claim self defense. If a store clerk shot his former friend in the back as the friend was leaving, would the clerk be able to prove there was even a robbery? The police don't have a crystal ball to see the truth with. They must investigate. "
Great wrote on Mar 30, 2007 7:13 AM:
" That's great to hear they will not consider any charges on the store owner, maybe this will be a lesson to the criminals. "
Protect your property wrote on Mar 30, 2007 6:57 AM:
" I can't believe that they would even think of bringing charges against Mr. Ahrens. The criminals are too protected these days and given too many rights. If they are convicted they only get a slap on the wrist and are soon back on the streets. Mr. Ahrens was protecting himself against a person that should be locked up and the key thrown away as he has several prior run ins with the law. The crooks should have stayed in Rochester as they only came to Winona for "no good". "
Jim wrote on Mar 30, 2007 6:38 AM:
" Ahrens should be given a medal, NOT even be considered for charges! Another waste of taxpayers money by convening a grand jury. What charges would he even be considered for? "
Advertisement
