Posted in

Dinguses in your neighborhood

Michael D. Turley was arrested this week for a stunt he pulled a few weeks back when he talked his obviously similarly-retarded nephew into dressing in a sheet and brandishing an RPG launcher in traffic in Phoenix, AZ. Turley, in the narration of his video of the incident, claimed he was testing the response time of police. The responding officer calmly had the youth place the launcher on the ground and asked for ID and left the scene when they told him they were making a movie. Then Dingus, the Senior, put the video on YouTube which resulted in his arrest;

After interviewing people who called 911 and later seeing the video posted on YouTube, police arrested Turley.

“It surprised us that he actually put that video on YouTube,” Holmes said.

The police response took just over three minutes from the first call, and a helicopter and SWAT team was dispatched as backup, Holmes said.

Well, putting their stupid acts on YouTube is what dinguses do, officer.

Police said Turley was charged with creating a false impression of a terrorist act, endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and misconduct involving simulated explosives.

18 thoughts on “Dinguses in your neighborhood

  1. Sorry, Jonn, but he’s not a dingus, he’s a f#$%ing moron and should be beat severely about the head and shoulders.

  2. Holy crap … if this happended in NYC or Warwick (my other home town) … there could have been a dead 16 year old (either by car, gun, or fist).

  3. reminds me of the woman who ran an anti-hunting group in Maine a few years back, who encouraged her group members to go out in the woods dressed in brown during hunting season in the hopes of provoking an accident. Her members , from all accounts, suggested she lead the way.
    What is it with the name Turley? Wasn’t that dipshit antigun lawyer who poineered the “guns are created only to break the law” suits many years ago Wendall Turley? (They interviewed him as he was climbing into his baby Ferrari – think a 328 – a car obviously bought to drive at the double nickel).

  4. There are a lot of places in this country where the teenager could have died suddenly and violently because of that stunt.

    The uncle is weak minded. He was testing police response? What about citizen response? In Arizona? Did he ever think about that? The answer would be “no.”

  5. I keep forgetting we have 350 million people these days, that means if something is so f#cking stupid the odds against it happening are a million to one it happens every 5 minutes every day 24/7/365…

  6. Holy fuck. I probably would have gotten all crazy and took out the kid and the cameraman (all terrorists want their exploits filmed by their terrorist buddies). Could have been two dead.

  7. Just think of the shit storm the MSM would make if some Vet had a carry permit and smoked his dumb ass, of was driving by coming from the range or lived nearby and popped his ass with an evil black rifle. OH SHIT, we would really be on the radr then wouldn’t we?

  8. A friend of mine, a reporter for KPNX channel 12 (NBC) here in Phoenix called me to ask what I would have done if I had seen him. I told her, I’da pulled out my .45 and given him ONE (1) chance to disarm and hit the deck, then I would have shot him. Retard uncle is in DEEP doo-doo for this asswholious stunt!?

  9. Well, Hallowe’en IS just around the corner. Do any of you think the cops will be able to tell the kids in costumes from the real bad guys?

  10. Now wait a minute . . .

    QUOTE: The responding officer calmly had the youth place the launcher on the ground and asked for ID and left the scene when they told him they were making a movie. END

    So he, or they, were in fact making a movie. After all, the video posted on YouTube IS a movie. Isn’t it?

    So the “producer” did not lie to the cop. And the report states the cop did not arrest him at the scene.

    Which leads, inescapably, to the conclusion that he was later arrested not for the reasons charged, but instead because his movie publicized police activities that they did not want public.

    And, since his “movie production” did not involve hundreds of people, the attendant restrictions of lawful activities by other citizens for the benefit of the movie company and those it had to bribe, uh, get licenses from, then he has not committed any malum-in-se acts.

    Malum-in-pro, on the other hand, just means he hasn’t paid the city/county/state all the required bribes.

Comments are closed.