Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/22/2005 11:08:03 AM EDT
Is ASSweb missing a moderator?


Man's Rampage Wounds North Dakota Police Chief


CAVALIER, N.D. (AP) -- A man being served with a protection order shot his way past police, set fire to the courthouse and jail - then returned as the fires raged and shot the police chief, officials said.

James Thorlakson, 54, managed to escape again after wounding the chief but was injured during gunfights with officers, officials said. He was arrested at a hospital about 30 miles away.


Thorlakson was charged Sunday with two counts of attempted murder and two counts of arson, said Stuart Askew, the Pembina County state's attorney. Other charges are possible, he said.

Both Thorlakson and Cavalier Police Chief Ken Wolf were hospitalized Sunday in satisfactory condition.

Officials said the rampage began Friday when officers tried to serve Thorlakson, of rural Hensel, with a protection order. Sheriff Wayne Samdahl said he could not discuss details of the order.

Armed with a pistol, Thorlakson shot at the officers, managed to escape and drove to the county courthouse in Cavalier, about 10 miles northeast, officials said.

Once there, he fired through a glass door at the law enforcement center, which holds the 911 emergency dispatch center, sheriff's office and jail. He splashed gasoline on a wall and set it on fire, the sheriff said. Two prisoners were evacuated and taken to another jail.

Thorlakson then drove to a back door of the nearby courthouse, where he poured gasoline in a hallway and started another fire, the sheriff said.

Thorlakson left the scene, then returned to the courthouse while firefighters were trying to extinguish the flames and shot Wolf, Samdahl said.

''The chief was coming out of the parking lot and didn't see him right away,'' Samdahl said. The chief was hit in the back of his leg, buttocks and back.

''I'm not sure how much damage was done, but (Wolf) is in stable condition and not happy about the situation,'' the sheriff said.

Thorlakson then fled again, exchanging gunfire with two deputies. He was missing for about five hours, Samdahl said. He was arrested seeking medical treatment in Park River.

County and state officials said the fires may have caused $1 million in damage. Askew said Thorlakson's initial court appearance, set for early this week, may be moved from Cavalier because of the damage.

''Our courthouse is not functional, and may not be available,'' Askew said.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:10:02 AM EDT
Sounds like they really pissed him off.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:28:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:30:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:40:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?




Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:42:33 AM EDT
This is EXACTLY why those Scandahoovians up north shouldn't have summer. The warm weather makes 'em unhinged.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:44:40 AM EDT
Nothing ever happens in small towns.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:45:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:46:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?




Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:51:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Valid points.


Are you ever justified in extracting vengence on those in the System that screw you over? After all, the System is your only legal recourse.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:51:24 AM EDT


Unavailable for comment.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:53:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Are you ever justified in extracting vengence on those in the System that screw you over? After all, the System is your only legal recourse.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:59:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Valid points.


Are you ever justified in extracting vengence on those in the System that screw you over? After all, the System is your only legal recourse.


1) I don't agree with the SCOTUS ruling, but your description of it is inflamatory, since you left out the part where they compensated him for taking his house.

2) "Vengence is mine, sayeth the lord."

3) Are you really advocating shooting at people and burning down public buildings if you disagree with the condemnation of your house?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:02:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Are you ever justified in extracting vengence on those in the System that screw you over? After all, the System is your only legal recourse.

www.vividobservation.com/images/streetart/stick-it.jpg



Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:07:10 PM EDT
Wow, he was rather motivated. Somebody ate their Weaties this morning.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:07:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?






Officials said the rampage began Friday when officers tried to serve Thorlakson, of rural Hensel, with a protection order. Sheriff Wayne Samdahl said he could not discuss details of the order.

In other words he was an abusive jack ass to start with......................... amazing the lenghts some people will go to try to rationalize attempting to kill others............................. if those otheres are police officers.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:10:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chuckstar:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Valid points.


Are you ever justified in extracting vengence on those in the System that screw you over? After all, the System is your only legal recourse.


1) I don't agree with the SCOTUS ruling, but your description of it is inflamatory, since you left out the part where they compensated him for taking his house. Compensation of the value of the property at the initial suit, which was 2 or 3 years ago. The price has grown in the current market, but he's getting the going rate for it in 2002 or so. Then charging him past rent.

2) "Vengence is mine, sayeth the lord."

3) Are you really advocating shooting at people and burning down public buildings if you disagree with the condemnation of your house? You've got to be fucking joking. You got a better idea when some uniforms show up at your door to take you away?




So, you wouldnt mind being kicked off your land, spend a couple years in court fighting, tons of lawyer fees, to be paid the going rate for your house 2 to 3 years in the past, then be charged rent for living there while the outcome was being decided?

Tell me how that is fair

So the question i ask is: How many uniforms is property worth?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:11:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MMcCall:


Unavailable for comment.


That's what I was thinking, that guy was on a mission.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:13:45 PM EDT
He was probably just pissed cause the Vikes are having a bad pre-season.......
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:13:49 PM EDT
Will I posted this yeterday can I call it a dupe ?

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=381724
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:16:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?




Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Well, along those lines, were the Founding Fathers and others fighting in the revolutionary war justified in killing redcoats when really their beef was with the king?
Not saying they are or they aren't but people can only hide behind “my boss told me to" for so long.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:17:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?






Officials said the rampage began Friday when officers tried to serve Thorlakson, of rural Hensel, with a protection order. Sheriff Wayne Samdahl said he could not discuss details of the order.

In other words he was an abusive jack ass to start with......................... amazing the lenghts some people will go to try to rationalize attempting to kill others............................. if those otheres are police officers.



No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 1:12:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jrzy:

No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"



Yeah, we don't know he was abusive, protection orders generally require a Court Hearing, and enough proof to convince a Judge of abusiveness.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 1:40:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 1:41:30 PM EDT by jrzy]

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"



Yeah, we don't know he was abusive, protection orders generally require a Court Hearing, and enough proof to convince a Judge of abusiveness.




That is so not true in many states.
The woman goes down to the court house and affirms she is telling the truth (under oath) and the protection order is granted and then served.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 1:42:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 1:43:01 PM EDT by IAMLEGEND]

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"



Yeah, we don't know he was abusive, protection orders generally require a Court Hearing, and enough proof to convince a Judge of abusiveness.






That is so not true in many states.
The woman goes down to the court house and affirms she is telling the truth (under oath) and the protection order is granted and then served.



But a woman in the midst of a divorce would NEVER lie!
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:38:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"



Yeah, we don't know he was abusive, protection orders generally require a Court Hearing, and enough proof to convince a Judge of abusiveness.




That is so not true in many states.
The woman goes down to the court house and affirms she is telling the truth (under oath) and the protection order is granted and then served.



In my state the victim must serve the "abuser" a notice to appear and both sides appear before the judge. if accused fails to appear an temporary order may be issued (10-14 days). then another hearing is heard for the permanant order (3 - 5 years.)

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:40:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"



Yeah, we don't know he was abusive, protection orders generally require a Court Hearing, and enough proof to convince a Judge of abusiveness.






That is so not true in many states.
The woman goes down to the court house and affirms she is telling the truth (under oath) and the protection order is granted and then served.



But a woman in the midst of a divorce would NEVER lie!

that is why men must protect themselves and have no direct contact with estranged spouses or former girlfriends.

Hard for her to allege abuse when you can demonstrate in court you havent even spoken on the phone in months.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:42:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"



Yeah, we don't know he was abusive, protection orders generally require a Court Hearing, and enough proof to convince a Judge of abusiveness.




Not true.

Still does not make his actions right. In the least bit.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:43:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?




Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Well, along those lines, were the Founding Fathers and others fighting in the revolutionary war justified in killing redcoats when really their beef was with the king?
Not saying they are or they aren't but people can only hide behind “my boss told me to" for so long.



Serving a RO does not justify what this guy did.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:46:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 2:48:22 PM EDT by 47]
'''''''Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?""""


Read the "Ballad of Carl Drega".....great book. A "yes" for that question works for me...
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:49:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:49:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?




Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Well, along those lines, were the Founding Fathers and others fighting in the revolutionary war justified in killing redcoats when really their beef was with the king?
Not saying they are or they aren't but people can only hide behind “my boss told me to" for so long.



Serving a RO does not justify what this guy did.



I agree.

I was just saying the 'just following orders' excuse only goes so far.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:51:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?






Officials said the rampage began Friday when officers tried to serve Thorlakson, of rural Hensel, with a protection order. Sheriff Wayne Samdahl said he could not discuss details of the order.

In other words he was an abusive jack ass to start with......................... amazing the lenghts some people will go to try to rationalize attempting to kill others............................. if those otheres are police officers.

........How do you "know" he was an abusive jerk??..........maybe he has a girl friend bitch that was also fucking with him..............................You never heard of a protective order being sworn out against someone that really didn't have to have one??..........As things go further down the shitter in this country you will see more of this men like Drega and this guy only need a little push to get them over the edge.......anyone that responds to the scene is gonna be a target...................ok go at it!!
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:54:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?




Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Well, along those lines, were the Founding Fathers and others fighting in the revolutionary war justified in killing redcoats when really their beef was with the king?
Not saying they are or they aren't but people can only hide behind “my boss told me to" for so long.



Serving a RO does not justify what this guy did.



I agree.

I was just saying the 'just following orders' excuse only goes so far.



That's really reaching on a standard delivering of a court order.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:07:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hellraiser:
Sounds like they really pissed him off.



For sure. But are you implying that somehow justifies his actions?




Does it? Would that guy that had his property taken in the recent SCOTUS case, and is now being charged RENT for property he OWNED and PAID TAXES on be justified?




Nope. How would he be justified in shooting the police chief for the actions of SCOTUS? Does the police chief approint federal judges?

It seems as though you are saying its acceptable to lash out at the first availbale authority figure you can find whenever an unrelated govt entity does something you disapprove of. It would make more sense to shoot random voters as they are the ones ultimately responsible.




Well, along those lines, were the Founding Fathers and others fighting in the revolutionary war justified in killing redcoats when really their beef was with the king?
Not saying they are or they aren't but people can only hide behind “my boss told me to" for so long.



Serving a RO does not justify what this guy did.



I agree.

I was just saying the 'just following orders' excuse only goes so far.



That's really reaching on a standard delivering of a court order.



I know, I think you're right.

I was just bringing this up because someone mentioned that you can't blame the messenger so to speak for a decision the courts made. All I was saying was you can't use that logic all the time because there could be other orders that were wrong (or more wrong).

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:13:55 PM EDT
The fact that anyone here is defending, excusing, minimizing, or rationalizing what this guy did based on the information provided is just plain embarassing. He was being served with an OFP. He could have gone to court and contested it, as opposed to going to court and burning it down while trying to kill some cops along the way.

Some of you guys just can't grasp the fact that you live in a society based upon the rule of law. Sometimes the law doesn't work in your favor, that's the breaks.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:30:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

No he is not right for the actions that followed serving the order.
Now you are convicting him of abuse . and you know that how?
Because he was being served?

Better brush up "innocent until proven guilty"



Yeah, we don't know he was abusive, protection orders generally require a Court Hearing, and enough proof to convince a Judge of abusiveness.




That is so not true in many states.
The woman goes down to the court house and affirms she is telling the truth (under oath) and the protection order is granted and then served.



In my state the victim must serve the "abuser" a notice to appear and both sides appear before the judge. if accused fails to appear an temporary order may be issued (10-14 days). then another hearing is heard for the permanant order (3 - 5 years.)




Temporary Restraining Orders can be issued on the say so of one party. They are temporary, 5 days, IIRC, around here. They give enough time to schedule a Hearing for a Permanent Order of Protection. Pemanent orders are not issued unless there is evidence to support them, and the person that is claimed to be the aggressor is given notice to appear, and the right ot present testimony, and cross examine witnesses. If they choose not to contest the Order at the Hearing, they are not required to attend. The order still must be supported by testimony or evidence before it is issued.

Since the article says "protection order" it would seem that there was a Hearing, and evidence presented to support the issuance of an Order of Protection.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:34:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

But a woman in the midst of a divorce would NEVER lie!



Yeah, he is just misunderstood................. he wasn't actually trying to kill anyone when he was shooting at them, or trying to set fire to an occupied building................... He was just "venting"..........


Is there no limit to the behavior you guys try to rationalize?

Gee I wonder what the response would be if the guy was an anti-gun whacko and tried to set a gun store on fire instead of a County SO........................
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:38:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

But a woman in the midst of a divorce would NEVER lie!



Yeah, he is just misunderstood................. he wasn't actually trying to kill anyone when he was shooting at them, or trying to set fire to an occupied building................... He was just "venting"..........


Is there no limit to the behavior you guys try to rationalize?

Gee I wonder what the response would be if the guy was an anti-gun whacko and tried to set a gun store on fire instead of a County SO........................



I've known of seveal guys who got hit with a RO by the soon to be X. It's all an effort to drive a wedge between the guy and the kids.

Standard procedure for the average divorce lawyer.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:42:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:
The fact that anyone here is defending, excusing, minimizing, or rationalizing what this guy did based on the information provided is just plain embarassing. He was being served with an OFP. He could have gone to court and contested it, as opposed to going to court and burning it down while trying to kill some cops along the way.

Some of you guys just can't grasp the fact that you live in a society based upon the rule of law. Sometimes the law doesn't work in your favor, that's the breaks.



Sir, you may need to leave.

You're trying to inject way too much common sense into this thread.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:43:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

But a woman in the midst of a divorce would NEVER lie!



Yeah, he is just misunderstood................. he wasn't actually trying to kill anyone when he was shooting at them, or trying to set fire to an occupied building................... He was just "venting"..........


Is there no limit to the behavior you guys try to rationalize?

Gee I wonder what the response would be if the guy was an anti-gun whacko and tried to set a gun store on fire instead of a County SO........................



I've known of seveal guys who got hit with a RO by the soon to be X. It's all an effort to drive a wedge between the guy and the kids.

Standard procedure for the average divorce lawyer.



And was there response to go on a crime spree and attempt murder, and other felonies?

Since we have an indication of how this guy acts, it isn't a big stretch to say he was an asshole.............. The RO was issued BECAUSE of how he acts.................

Interesting to see people coming out to defend him.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:46:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

But a woman in the midst of a divorce would NEVER lie!



Yeah, he is just misunderstood................. he wasn't actually trying to kill anyone when he was shooting at them, or trying to set fire to an occupied building................... He was just "venting"..........


Is there no limit to the behavior you guys try to rationalize?

Gee I wonder what the response would be if the guy was an anti-gun whacko and tried to set a gun store on fire instead of a County SO........................



I've known of seveal guys who got hit with a RO by the soon to be X. It's all an effort to drive a wedge between the guy and the kids.

Standard procedure for the average divorce lawyer.



And was there response to go on a crime spree and attempt murder, and other felonies?

Since we have an indication of how this guy acts, it isn't a big stretch to say he was an asshole.............. The RO was issued BECAUSE of how he acts.................

Interesting to see people coming out to defend him.



I'm in NO WAY defending him.

I was referring to your RO comments. It's SOP for a divorce lawyer to get one on some guy REGARDLESS if he has done something or not.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:48:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bmick325:

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:
The fact that anyone here is defending, excusing, minimizing, or rationalizing what this guy did based on the information provided is just plain embarassing. He was being served with an OFP. He could have gone to court and contested it, as opposed to going to court and burning it down while trying to kill some cops along the way.

Some of you guys just can't grasp the fact that you live in a society based upon the rule of law. Sometimes the law doesn't work in your favor, that's the breaks.



Sir, you may need to leave.

You're trying to inject way too much common sense into this thread.



My apologies....I just never got fitted for my tinfoil....
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:54:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Is ASSweb missing a moderator?


Man's Rampage Wounds North Dakota Police Chief


CAVALIER, N.D. (AP) -- A man being served with a protection order shot his way past police, set fire to the courthouse and jail - then returned as the fires raged and shot the police chief, officials said.

James Thorlakson, 54, managed to escape again after wounding the chief but was injured during gunfights with officers, officials said. He was arrested at a hospital about 30 miles away.


Thorlakson was charged Sunday with two counts of attempted murder and two counts of arson, said Stuart Askew, the Pembina County state's attorney. Other charges are possible, he said.

Both Thorlakson and Cavalier Police Chief Ken Wolf were hospitalized Sunday in satisfactory condition.

Officials said the rampage began Friday when officers tried to serve Thorlakson, of rural Hensel, with a protection order. Sheriff Wayne Samdahl said he could not discuss details of the order.

Armed with a pistol, Thorlakson shot at the officers, managed to escape and drove to the county courthouse in Cavalier, about 10 miles northeast, officials said.

Once there, he fired through a glass door at the law enforcement center, which holds the 911 emergency dispatch center, sheriff's office and jail. He splashed gasoline on a wall and set it on fire, the sheriff said. Two prisoners were evacuated and taken to another jail.

Thorlakson then drove to a back door of the nearby courthouse, where he poured gasoline in a hallway and started another fire, the sheriff said.

Thorlakson left the scene, then returned to the courthouse while firefighters were trying to extinguish the flames and shot Wolf, Samdahl said.

''The chief was coming out of the parking lot and didn't see him right away,'' Samdahl said. The chief was hit in the back of his leg, buttocks and back.

''I'm not sure how much damage was done, but (Wolf) is in stable condition and not happy about the situation,'' the sheriff said.

Thorlakson then fled again, exchanging gunfire with two deputies. He was missing for about five hours, Samdahl said. He was arrested seeking medical treatment in Park River.

County and state officials said the fires may have caused $1 million in damage. Askew said Thorlakson's initial court appearance, set for early this week, may be moved from Cavalier because of the damage.

''Our courthouse is not functional, and may not be available,'' Askew said.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press




Damn! Thats some fucking dedication.

I wish the Chief a speedy recovery, and hope justice is swift and harsh on this bitch ass criminal.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:55:06 PM EDT
Where are all the "Molon Labe" guys and the "Vote from the rooftops" guys.......................I guess "They" havn't crossed "Your line" yet..........................Oh I am sorry You got the T-shirt as a joke you really don't mean it!!
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:58:46 PM EDT
North Dakota rules.

That must be our one murder of the year.

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:25:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 4:32:39 PM EDT by Ben70]
Edit - drega comments already made.

He's a dedicated shitbird. Attempted murder.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:38:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:43:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 4:48:51 PM EDT by MK4Mod0]

Originally Posted By DigDug:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
North Dakota rules.

That must be our one murder of the year.




No one killed. We know how to take a bullet up here in the north land.

Some of you defending this asshole really need to pull your heads out of your asses.

..................I am not defending him so much as I am try to let peple see the hypocrisy that goes on here
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:51:56 PM EDT
You ever heard the one about the guy in his mid fifties who's taken all the shit he's gonna take? Well every year there are more of them. (just a friendly observation)
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:02:17 PM EDT
I guess this guy didn't have time to build an armored bulldozer.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top