Hunter found dead in Quakertown

[ddefazio]

For the sake of this post, let's assume that the former gym attacker, former shoplifter, former "shoot another hunter in the neck", former other-stupid-shit guy, is the killer. I base this solely on the news accounts, and as a starting point for discussion; I have no inside knowledge, implied or explicit.

Based on his reported convictions, he has a history of impulse control deficits, poor judgment, and lack of morals; but some folks here would say "well, he still has a right to defend himself, he should be able to own a gun once he's paid his debt to society"?

The fact is, we have lots of people walking among us who really shouldn't have access to firearms (or cars, or children, or gasoline), and people with a pattern of convictions like he has have forfeited some of the rights that we're born with.

I'm in favor of virtually no restrictions on the types or calibers of firearms that should be available for sale at WalMart or Cabelas (or that great little shop on Route 309, American Arms & Ammo). You want an M-16? Fine, it's $800, cash & carry if you pass PICS. The M-60's are backordered and will take a week.

Our rights shouldn't be limited by what the worst of us might do. Sure, felons with machineguns would be a problem for a neighborhood, but liars on the editorial board of the Inquirer can wreck a city. Should the 1st Amendment be subject to more "reasonable restrictions"?

The default should be that you start with 100% of your rights. If you break important rules or become permanently crazy, you lose a few at a time.

Bad people should forfeit some rights, and the worse people they are, the more rights they should forfeit. In this guy's case, it seems like a really good idea to eliminate his access to guns, after the first negligent shooting, after the attack with the barbell, after the lack of conscience shown by the shoplifting.

Extremism is dumb. "Ban all guns except for police and military" is just about at the same place on the dimwit scale as "once you've done your time, you should have all your rights restored." I don't want the Brady idiots treating me like a potential felon, but I also don't want some mugger to be able to buy an FN-FAL the day after finishing his 24 months of supervised probation.

There should be a path to regain those forfeited rights, as there is now for some state crimes and prohibitors, and as there should be for federal convictions (but isn't). But it shouldn't be automatic. You have an m1 conviction from 15 years ago? Fine, make your case to a judge, prove that you have overcome that bad judgment. That process would safeguard society and still preserve your ability to get your full rights restored.

This concept can be tough for a society that wants to deny absolute truth.

[ImminentDanger]

I still think he didn't fire the gun so why should he be charged? He also didn't sell him the gun and I'm sure he didn't think the asshole would shoot someone. As for the girlfriend giving him the gun, who gives a shit. He could have bought a rifle anywhere cash and carry from anyone in PA and they wouldn't be held responsible for giving him a background check. I know technically she broke the law since she knew about his record but in the end he could have got a gun anywhere. The trigger man is responsible, no one else in my opinion.

If the reports are right (????)...
No doubt... Manilla should be charged with negligent homicide / manslaughter... If he pulled the trigger, he deserves the charges...

However, Marino (Uncle & former DA) DID IN FACT KNOW MANILLA WAS A VIOLENT FELON HANDLING A GUN... It was Marino who was his lawyer in the felony case...*

To me, this equates to being an accomplice... This homicide took place during the commission of a crime... If an accomplice to a burglary can be similarly charged for the murderous action of his partner, there is NO REASON that this former-DA should not be charged in this incident as well... Together, they conspired to commit a crime >>> Manilla's carrying and firing a firearm is a crime!...

Likewise, if the girlfriend knowingly and willingly loaned the rifle to Manilla, and she knew he was a felon, then she should be charged as well for knowingly supplying a gun to a felon... irrelevant of the homicide charges...

As to the others in the party, we don't know what they did or did not know...

The ARROGANCE of Manilla and Marino got a man killed!!
(They believed, and probably still do, that they are above the law!)
(Only time will tell if the current DA believes that too!)

...

*(Story Here)

In 1994, Manilla was cited for carelessly or negligently shooting at another hunter in Schuylkill County. A 59-year-old man was injured.

Nine years before that, Manilla was convicted of aggravated assault, a felony, for beating another man in the head with a weightlifting bar outside a gym in Norristown.

That 1985 case, in which Marino served as his nephew's defense lawyer, raises questions of whether Manilla was hunting legally. State and federal laws generally prohibit convicted felons from buying or possessing guns, or hunting with firearms.

[animalmother85]

http://www.wfmz.com/bucksnews/26153503/detail.html

[ImminentDanger]

Full Story Here

In 1985, he was convicted of aggravated assault after he beat another man so badly that part of the man's skull had to be operated on and removed, court records indicate. Marino represented Manilla in the case. A charge of attempted homicide was initially filed, but not pursued by the prosecution.

Following a verbal dispute inside Roberto's Gym in Norristown, Manilla followed the man outside and whacked him in the head with a weightlifting bar, according to an affidavit of probable cause.

Manilla repeatedly threatened to kill the man and struck him three times with the bar - two blows to the head and one to the rib cage, court papers said. After the two men were briefly separated, Manilla "sucker-punched" the other man in the mouth and bit his ear before gym personnel broke up the assault, said records.

Online court documents state Manilla was sentenced to a minimum of four months to a maximum of one year and 11 months in prison.

Like so many other lifelong criminals.... Manilla got away with a slap on the wrist....

Despite being a convicted felon with a hunting-related shooting citation on his record, Manilla would not be prevented from obtaining a hunting license. Pennsylvania guidelines do not prohibit convicted felons from obtaining hunting licenses, said Cheryl Trewella, an information and education supervisor with the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

She said it would be up to police to move forward prosecuting a felon who possesses a firearm while hunting. The felon would have to be prosecuted under criminal law prohibiting him or her from having firearms.

If a hunter's license is revoked for a game law infraction, the revocation can last from a minimum of one year up to a maximum of 15 years in the case of a fatal hunting-related shooting, Trewella said. She said she couldn't comment on whether Manilla's license was suspended following the 1994 citation or if he currently has a valid hunting license.

Despite all their anti-gun rhetoric, when it comes to ACTUALLY CHARGING CRIMINALS WITH GUN-RELATED VIOLATIONS, the DAs have been unwilling to use the laws at their disposal!!

...

The 1985 Victim's Story Here

A 23-year-old Ursinus College graduate at the time, Manilla served four months on work release after admitting he had struck Childs twice in the head with a weightlifting bar. Childs' fractured skull required two operations.

A felony conviction for aggravated assault - plea-bargained down from an attempted-homicide charge - did not keep Manilla from attending law school and becoming a lawyer.

Nor, apparently, did it dissuade him from hunting with guns, despite federal and state laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.

All of which galls Childs, who said he received a call as recently as last year from a friend of Manilla's family asking whether he would support a pardon of Manilla's crime. Childs said he told the caller no.

[hzox221]

Looks like we will have a real life "jailhouse lawyer" now.

[ddefazio]

Looks like we will have a real life "jailhouse lawyer" now.

Can't wait to see how much tax dollars will get eaten up by the appeals process...

[glocke12]

"Groh was not wearing his orange safety vest, which Heckler said he may have removed as he prepared to gut the deer. "

Remove a vest to gut the deer ? Sorry,dont see this happening.

[bnkrtstk]

"Groh was not wearing his orange safety vest, which Heckler said he may have removed as he prepared to gut the deer. "

Remove a vest to gut the deer ? Sorry,dont see this happening.

When I hunt private property I remove my orange jacket and tie it around a tree when I gut my deer. I do wear my orange bibs, and hat, but the jacket comes off.

[Bravo Whiskey]

I called the Bucks DA office on Wed.. I actually received a return call from an ADA near the end of business hours that same day.
I told him how I felt , stated in this thread and that many others feel the same way. He stated that he could not comment (as I thought he would say) but many folks have been contacting them stating the same things I did.
Regardless of who ever pulled the trigger there is a lot more than just an accident. The ADA did state that they were looking into everything as there are many things known and many unknowns. I got the feeling that this case is/will/hope expose a lot of other stuff. One example is the passing/sitting on the BAR by a felon. I was told by the ada and other lawyers that it is up to the bar that is sitting what they take into account from one's past when they wish to be considered. I could tell that the issue of the former DA knowing of the person of interest using a gun was a sore spot.
As I said and others have said , Arrogance is the word that best discribes this horrible accident.
Keep watching the reports and give the DA a call @ the local & State level and maybe justice for the victim will come.

[john doe]

HOLY CRAP I KNOW THAT GUY! (MANILLA)