Deerthug

Just got the call. She passed about 15 mins ago. May she rest in peace. Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

Thanks for your prayers everyone. Just got home to my kids after a really long and tiring day. We thought we were going to lose her earlier today but she's still hanging on. Her brother made it back from a business trip in Europe and came from JFK straight to the hospice facility and was able to see her. Brought my kids to see her too earlier. My heart sank when they broke down crying in my wife's and my arms. They at least were able to say their goodbyes. It is so sureal watching her breath as if each breath was her last. I pray that God ends her sufferring soon.

For my sister in law (my wife's sister) who was admitted to hospice last night. At 53 she was diagnosed with kidney cancer that Metastasized to her liver, lungs and bones 6 weeks ago and it was too far advanced for any chemo. Dr giving her less than 3 months but from the looks of things it may be a week or so. Cancer really sucks. Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

Sorry for your loss. Prayers to you and his family. Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

I feel for you guys up there. We are getting rain this afternoon changing to some flurries or dusting by early am tomorrow. I'm so done with this winter!!!

Thanks everyone Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

Of listening and watching my daughter perform with her high school band at Carnegie Hall in NYC tonight. OBHS did a great job tonight. Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

I'm in the same boat as you. My son is heading out with me this May. His grandpa has a nice Winchester 20g to give him to learn on. I can't wait to take him with me.

I thought that as well. Perhaps ethnicity of the accused has something to do with it. Is it an election year for the DA in Suffolk County? Maybe the DA is one of Bloombergs sheep? Who knows what the mentality is here.

This is from News12. http://longisland.news12.com/news/youssef-abdelgawad-of-huntington-station-charged-with-manslaughter-for-shooting-alleged-burglar-1.7269293 Not sure if you all can see this video but it clearly shows a man trying to break in and then firing at least one shot from a handgun. Prosecutor claims no bullets were found at the scene . . . So what?? The video shows the man pointing the handgun into what appears to be a sliding glass door and making a firing motion. I think that is enough for an acquittal. RIVERHEAD - A Huntington Station man has been indicted on manslaughter charges for shooting an alleged home burglar who later died, but his attorney says it's a clear case of self-defense. Youssef Abdelgawad says a man with a gun was attempting to break into his Huntington Station home back in August. His family shared surveillance video of the incident with News 12 Long Island, and in it, the alleged burglar is seen trying to enter a door. The burglar then pulls out a gun, and a flash is seen that appears to be the burglar firing a shot into the home. Youssef Abdelgawad's attorney says he came to the door with a rifle and returned fire at the burglar and his alleged accomplices, striking one of them. The accomplice later died. READ MORE: Long Island Top Stories Prosecutors say no bullets were recovered at the scene, so it's unclear if the alleged burglar ever fired a shot into Abdelgawad's home. At court today in Riverhead, Abdelgawad's tearful mother insisted her son is a good young man who hopes to become a police officer. She says he was just trying to protect his family. The case will be back in court this week.

My pleasure! I'm glad you enjoyed it. It was a simple recipe but it comes out great!

First you brown the venison in some olive oil and put it aside. Cook the brown rice in a separate pot for 30-40mins. Meanwhile cut and clean the peppers of seeds. Sauté some chopped onions and spinach in olive oil. Drain the rice and set aside. Add the meat back into the pan and stir together for few minutes. Add the drained rice to the mixture and stir well. Set the cut peppers in a shallow pan and fill the peppers with the mixture. Add a few tablespoons of tomato sauce on top and stick in the oven. 375 degrees for 1 hour or until peppers are shriveled and soft. Enjoy!

Welcome to the brother/sisterhood! I started late in life and it sucked me in hook line and sinker! Enjoy the ride! There is lots to learn here.

I was actually going to make slow cooked chili until my wife reminded me that we need to eat the peppers before they go bad. Lol!

Check my earlier post where I posted the NYS Jury instructions. There is no duty to retreat in your home. In order to use deadly force you must have a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger and you are not the aggressor. The key word is "reasonable". But you dont have to wait to be struck, stabbed or shot first as long as you reasonably believe that you or anyone with you is in imminent danger. With that being said. My choice of home defense are my 12 ga shotguns strategically placed in my home with 00 shells at the ready. The mere sound of the action Imho would make an intruder $hit in his/her pants.

Bell peppers stuffed with ground venison, brown rice, chopped onions and spinach topped with a dollop of tomato sauce ... Yum! Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

Although I don't handle criminal matters, I thought I'd share with you the jury instructions that are read to a jury about to deliberate on whether deadly force is justified: (It's long but worth the read) CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 2d (CJI2d-NY) NY JUSTIFICATION: USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON PENAL LAW 35.15 (Effective Sept. 1, 1980) NOTE: This charge should precede the reading of the elements of the charged crime, and then, the final element of the crime charged should read as follows: “and, #. That the defendant was not justified.” [With respect to count(s) (specify),] [T]he defendant has raised the defense of justification, also known as self defense. The defendant, however, is not required to prove that he was justified. The People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified. I will now explain our law’s definition of the defense of justification as it applies to this case. Under our law, a person may use deadly physical force upon another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of [unlawful] deadly physical force by such individual. Some of the terms used in this definition have their own special meaning in our law. I will now give you the meaning of the following terms: “deadly physical force” and “reasonably believes.” DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury. [serious physical injury means impairment of a person's physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.] The determination of whether a person REASONABLY BELIEVES deadly physical force to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by another individual requires the application of a two-part test. That test applies to this case in the following way: First, the defendant must have actually believed that (specify) was using or was about to use deadly physical force against him/her [or someone else], and that the defendant’s own use of deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself from it; and Second, a “reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have had those same beliefs. Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself [or someone else] against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable. To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), and a “reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too On the question of whether the defendant did reasonably believe that deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), it does not matter that the defendant was or may have been mistaken in his/her belief; provided that such belief was both honestly held and reasonable. [Add if there was evidence of a party’s reputation for violence: Now, you have heard testimony that (specify) had a reputation for violence and engaged in violent acts. Normally, the law does not permit such testimony. The reason is that every person, regardless of that person's relative worth to the community, has the right to live undisturbed by an unlawful assault. The character of (specify) is thus not in issue. What is in issue, however, is whether the defendant did "reasonably believe" that the deadly physical force he/she used was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she “reasonably believed” to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify). In assessing that issue, you may consider whether the defendant knew that (specify) had a reputation for violence or had engaged in violent acts. If so, you may then consider to what extent, if any, that knowledge contributed to a “reasonable belief” that the deadly physical force the defendant used was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she “reasonably believed” was the use or imminent use of such force by (specify). Further, provided the defendant believed (specify) had such reputation or engaged in such acts, it does not matter whether that belief was correct.] Add as applicable: Notwithstanding the rules I have just explained, the defendant would not be justified in using deadly physical force under the following circumstances: Select appropriate alternative(s): (1) The defendant would not be justified if he/she was the initial aggressor. [Add if applicable: except, that the defendant's use of deadly physical force would nevertheless be justified if he/she had withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to (specify) but (specify) persisted in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of (unlawful) deadly physical force.] “Initial aggressor” means the person who first attacks or threatens to attack; that is, the first person who uses or threatens the imminent use of offensive physical force. The actual striking of the first blow or inflicting of the first wound, however, does not necessarily determine who was the initial aggressor. A person who reasonably believes that another is about to use deadly physical force upon him/her need not wait until he/she is struck or wounded. He/she may, in such circumstances, be the first to use deadly physical force, so long as he/she reasonably believed it was about to be used against him/her. He/she is then not considered to be the “initial aggressor,” even though he/she strikes the first blow or inflicts the first wound. Arguing, using abusive language, calling a person names, or the like, unaccompanied by physical threats or acts, does not make a person an initial aggressor and does not justify physical force. [A person cannot be considered the initial aggressor simply because he/she has a reputation for violence or has previously engaged in violent acts.] (2) The defendant would not be justified if he/she knew that he/she could with complete safety to himself/herself and others avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by retreating. [The defendant, however, would not be required to retreat if the defendant was in his/her dwelling and was not the initial aggressor. The term, “dwelling,” encompasses a house, an apartment or a part of a structure where the defendant lives and where others are ordinarily excluded. (The determination of whether a particular location is part of a defendant's dwelling depends on the extent to which the defendant [and persons actually sharing living quarters with the defendant] exercise(s) exclusive possession and control over the area in question.)] (3) The defendant would not be justified if (specify’s) conduct was provoked by the defendant himself/herself with intent to cause physical injury to (specify). (4) The defendant would not be justified if the deadly physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. The People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified. It is thus an element of [each] count [specify] that the defendant was not justified. As a result, if you find that the People have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified, then you must find the defendant not guilty of [all] count(s) [specify].

Apparently this also happens on LI too!!! These idiots need to be castrated and then euthanized..... From News12 WOODBURY - A man from Dix Hills is facing disturbing new charges after being accused of beating a dog so badly that it had be euthanized. Steven Errante, 26, is facing charges of aggravated cruelty to animals, petit larceny and sexual misconduct. Prosecutors say the misconduct charge stems from an investigation that revealed Errante had sex with the dog before he beat it with a baseball bat back in December. The petit larceny charge was added because Errante allegedly stole the dog from a fenced-in pen behind a church near Errante's home on Deer Park Avenue, prosecutors say. As News 12 Long Island has reported, the Rottweiler-Labrador mix had to be euthanized. It had suffered several serious injuries, including a fractured skull. Errante has been ordered held on $50,000 cash bail or $100,000 bond. The court granted a request by his defense that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

Nice cover there Culver! LOL!

Thank the good Lord . . . stick him back on his raft and send him across the pond!

I think you mean udder disappointment Burt. Lol! Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

Ha ha good one Lawdwaz Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

And found 3 feet of snow on our hunting grounds. Thankfully our neighbor plowed our long driveway and around the garages and barns. Way too much snow to hit the cams. So instead going to be working in the garages and barn. But first some pictures... Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

Here's my arthritic 8 pt from this past season. Sent with Tapatalk on my Samsung Galaxy 4

Hmm...this may work...if only i can convince the wife... Thank you Eddie...