Mac man allegedly opens fire on raft
Anthony Gray Aldeguer, 56, was charged with one count each of menacing, possession of a pointed firearm, felon in possession of a firearm and reckless endangering. He was lodged in the Yamhill County Jail on $55,000 bail.
Oregon State Police trooper Adam Kowing gave this account:
About 5:30 p.m., the Yamhill Communications Agency received a call about two subjects being fired on. As a dispatcher was sending law enforcement personnel to the scene, another shot was heard in the background.
In addition to the state police, the sheriff’s office also dispatched officers.
They stopped two individuals attempting to leave in a pickup, and discovered four others in the backyard of a residence by the bridge.
The two men who reported the gunfire were contacted on the west side of the bridge. They said a man on the other side of the river began yelling at them as they were pulling their raft out. Soon, they said, they heard shots being fired and felt bullets whizzing over their heads.
They said the gunfire came from the direction where the man had been yelling at them. And they were able to positively identify Aldeguer as the shooter.
Two .22-caliber rifles were found across the street from the residence. Investigators determined they had been left there by Aldeguer.
Comments
miketubbs1
A maniac, to say the least.
Rotwang
So how did he get the gun with background checks and all?
tagup
Your point?
Rick
tagup: Point being, how did a felon get a firearm, what with all the required background checks being in place now.
Oh, that's right criminals don't obey laws....
Mike
Criminals will always be able to get guns. There are so many of them, they are easy to steal. Nice compact item, good turn around time, and excellent price points. What's not to like. That in no way means those of us who have grown up with guns and/or own guns should fear back ground checks.
tagup
Rotwang- I hope you aren't implying that background checks should be discontinued because the process doesn't completely eliminate the problem. Seems to me it's a common sense place to start. There must be some common ground that both sides of the gun control issue can agree upon.....is a background check really that invasive? Is mandatory training/ licensing/insurance a deal braker?
tagup
sorry- last post should have been directed to Rick....
Lulu
Perhaps he was off his meds, in which case we should counsel/understand his behavior, which certainly is not his fault.
tagup
So should a person that is diagonsed with a mental illness have a firearm?
Lulu
As long as they're on their meds.
Seabiscuit
What is "possession of a POINTED firearm"?
sbagwell
§ 166.190¹
Pointing firearm at another
Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury. [Formerly 163.320]
Seabiscuit
Steve, I am very familiar with that ORS, but I have never ever heard it called "possession of a pointed firearm" before...never herd nor seen the court or D.A.'s office call it that either.
sbagwell
All I can tell you is, that's the description we got. The original charges have since been superceded by a grand jury indictment, by the way, and that one is not on the list. Steve