Utah Guns Forum banner

Super Dell

6641 Views 13 Replies 8 Participants Last post by  W. Clark Aposhian
What's that stench in Draper? Could it be bull****? Chicken ****? Pig droppings?

It appears to be emanating from the trial of "Super Dell" Schanze on May 10 on the absurd charge of brandishing a firearm in a fight. This trial should grab the attention of anyone who firmly believes that the right to defend oneself from physical harm is a fundamental, inviolate human right.

This prosecution is so foul … where to begin? Let's start where the stink is strongest.

The prosecution does not dispute that three men in three vehicles pursued Schanze for allegedly speeding through their Draper neighborhood. They caught up with Schanze outside his vehicle, at the street’s dead-end, and “confronted” him. (Schanze’s 8-year-old daughter remained in the car.) One man picked up a rock, and threatened to smash the taillight of Schanze’s vehicle, with Schanze standing close at hand. At that point, Schanze produced a handgun.

Now, anyone who has been around law enforcement knows that the police will view this scenario pretty much as follows.

Of the three men who pursued Schanze, at least one had a cell phone. He had the opportunity to call police at anytime as he followed Schanze down the dead-end road, or when he stopped his vehicle, or anytime after he got out of his vehicle. Instead, none of the three attempted to phone police until after Schanze produced a weapon. In other words, they were perfectly content to enjoy their little stint at vigilantism, until things didn’t go quite their way! They had no intention of proceeding lawfully.

Now the police just plain always press charges against everyone they can in this type of situation. Why? Basically, these are a pack of lower primates, behaving like babies, creating police reports and a mountain of paperwork for the responding officers. None of these baboons did “the right thing.” And the POs are Pissed Off!!

Someone like Rock Head, the man who admits picking up a rock, will always be charged with something, it's that simple (at a minimum, disorderly conduct). And as often as not, Rock Head would be charged with felony aggravated assault, and be allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

In this case, none of the Three Stooges have been charged with anything. Although this defies logic, the explanation is uncomplicated. The Draper Police and prosecutors were so prejudiced against Schanze from the outset, they just could not perform their duties. They decided that charging any of the three vigilantes, with anything, could undermine their efforts to get Schanze. What’s worse, not pressing any charges against these three helps assure that they are indebted to the police. This bribe is an ironclad guarantee that the three will “color” their testimony at Schanze’s trial with utter disregard for fair play.

Why do many members of law enforcement throughout this valley hold such contempt for Schanze? Well, Schanze's alleged habitual bad driving isn't sufficient motivation for police and prosecutors to get so caught up in a vendetta. Rather, these rotten Apples hate Dell (sorry, I couldn't stop myself) as somone who stridently advocates for the right to keep firearms in self-defense. These are the dangerous thugs who would like to see themselves as the only persons in society with firearms.

They aren't exceedingly bad people. They are just average people who simply can't handle the amazing power of being peace officers and prosecutors. Nevertheless, this sort of putrid conduct by the “justice" system is just the sort of fuel firing a widespread breakdown of respect for law, order and the justice system in our nation. Nothing alienates more than hypocrisy.

Why was Schanze not guilty of unnecessarily threatening to use deadly force? In reality, if some guy picks up a rock in your direct presence and threatens to damage your car, he is demonstrating that he is ready and willing to get into a violent confrontation with you. He need not actually verbalize such a threat.

Standing alone, confronted with a healthy adult male wielding a rock a few feet or even yards away, any reasonable person must conclude that if they attempt to defend their property, they may be attacked with the rock. Rock Head should be charged with aggravated assault.

Here is my hope. Schanze’s jury will “just say no” to such obvious abuse of legal process by the prosecution. If not, let’s hope that a least one juror, even if she or he has to be a lone “holdout,” will have the courage to just tell these prosecutors to shove it!

Acquit Schanze of all charges, even the alleged speeding. It doesn't matter if he was going 60, or even 80 mph. This doesn’t excuse abuse of the legal process. Send a message! Don't tolerate a justice system that lets Sanderson and his two companions completely off the hook as a form of "bribery" to enlist them in this get-Schanze-at-all-costs vendetta.

Every human has the right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend themselves BEFORE they have been overwhelmed by an attacker. None of us has a crystal ball when we are confronted by aggression. We do not have a duty to wait until it is “too late” to get a weapon at hand.

What’s more, this whole idea that an aggressor has to be unmistakeably life-threatening before you're entitled to secure your own safety with a firearm is just dangerous, unreasonable bull****. For instance, the February 3, 2006, Salt Lake Tribune carried a story about a 22-year-old kid, Ryan Lawrence Evans, who punched his friend in the face "a few times," - the victim died.

This isn't one-in-a-million stuff. There was another incident, I'm thinking it was about 15 years ago, somewhere on 200 South at about 250 West in Salt Lake, where some kid delivered a single punch to another kid's head, the victim fell and hit his head on the pavement, and quickly died. I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that someone dies from a beating by one or more "unarmed" assailants somewhere in this country virtually every day.

Good public policy has to consider some other factors -- some individuals are extra vulnerable to attack because of their physical infirmities. Schanze has asserted that he has a long history of significant back problems. Now, since he apparently regularly hang-glides, this suggests that his back may not be such a limiting factor. But for many individuals, their infirmities mean, without doubt, that even the slightest physical attack can have permanent or deadly consequences.

Furthermore, some individuals, men and women, experience severe anxiety or panic in the face of virtually any physical aggression. They are just chemically wired that way, like the small child that hides behind his mother's skirts. This shouldn't make them criminals. The aggressors are the criminals.


(I have absolutely no connection to Dell Schanze; I have never met him, never set foot in one of his businesses, I am not aware that we have any mutual associates. I did enjoy giving him a pointless rash of **** in another post here on this board a few hours ago. At least I think it was him.)
See less See more
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
<sarcasm on> Right! Free Dell Schanze! He's not guilty of anything! If he had happened to kill someone driving like that, it would have been their fault for getting in the way of his car! And it's only right to protect his deadly weapon (car) with another deadly weapon! <sarcasm off>

The biggest problem I have with the prosecuters is that they haven't taken SuperDell's guns and cars away from him a long, long time ago. IMHO, the idiot qualifies as a perfect candidate to lose both his driver's license and CFP.
Good post (the first one).

There are two separate incidences here. If it's proven he was speeding the way that is claimed, then punish him for it. I don't want someone going 60 mph down MY street, and I don't think anybody else here does either.

As for the brandishing charge, it's BS. If they relieve these three guys from any legal responsibility, then they must also do the same for Dell.
Sambolijah said:
Good post (the first one).

There are two separate incidences here. If it's proven he was speeding the way that is claimed, then punish him for it. I don't want someone going 60 mph down MY street, and I don't think anybody else here does either.

As for the brandishing charge, it's BS. If they relieve these three guys from any legal responsibility, then they must also do the same for Dell.
I'm glad they threw out the brandishing charge. That was bunk, and if upheld would be BAD precedence.

The one they got him on is something we all could find ourselves nailed with. In the heat of the moment what we write or remember can be used against us! I doubt he tried to hide or make that "Omission" and then go on and talk about it.

Understand that MY opinion is that Dell is a "Air head" (I had a four letter "d" word there at first, but...) But that doesn't make him automatically guilty, just stupid, (and obnoxious, but that's another story.)

It bothers me a lot that the impression from this is that if someone is driving fast through your neighborhood that you can chase them down vigilante style and it is okay. I have yet to hear where ANY LEO or official frowned on what the three did... Maybe I haven't been listening, but from what I've seen they got a total free pass.

I live on the “landing strip” of a “jump” over the Murdock canal. We have kids jumping it all the time, sometimes causing damage to neighbor’s property. All we are allowed to do is try to get a description and license number and let the LEOs do their job.
See less See more
Dell, love him or hate him, he stood up for what was right. It is unfortunate that a sin of "Omission" occurred while he filled out his original police form. Between the adrenaline rush, the asininity of his assaulters the police at the scene, and probably media, as well as there probably not being a lot of room to write every single detail down that you could remember at the time on that tiny piece of paper; it is no wonder he inadvertantly missed something. I have filled out many police reports for many things over the years, and invariably, as I calmed down and got away from the situation, I would remember something I forget to spell out. The conviction he got was for an omission! How stupid! It was probably brought up later as some officer went over the assaultants writings, and because Dell did not mention the same thing the prosecutor decided to charge him. You know the rote--big name, big scene, lots of dollars & the prestige of trying a high profile case--big ego is what that is all about--seen it too often & it insults me & my intelligence every time it occurs.
Now as for Dells' gun charges--totally found innocent as he was from the beginning! In am glad he stood up for the right. His comments on the news were honest, poignant & emotional, and I do not blame him for acting in the appropriate manner he did during that incident.
As for the speeding--a bunch of thugs said he was speeding--I have always been told by officers when I report things like this, " I can't do anything about it 'cause I did not see it happen." What a crock! I have been told this on many occasions by officers--yet they chose to charge him anyway, on the word of these thugs who were disobeying the law themselves! Talk about two faced police & methods--this is an excellent example.

Stand up, be counted & carry often!
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today?

ps--sorry for the rant-butt I had to say it & put things in perspective. :oops: :twisted: :shock:
See less See more
What was the outcome? I searched the local paper web sites, found a lot of drama... but could not find the verdict. ?!?!?

Lots of dramatic presentation and no pertinent information ... and people wonder why I don't pay attention to the media.
Not guilty of brandishing.
Guilty of providing false information to a police officer, or something worded like that.

I hadn't heard about that second one, but I'm happy for the brandishing verdict.

Now if he's NOT guilty of brandishing a firearm, then he acted reasonably when confronted by these three guys. If pulling your weapon is a reasonable approach to a sitution, wouldn't it hold that these three guys should be charged with something?

Doesn't add up if these three aren't charged.
Cinhil said:
...As for the speeding--a bunch of thugs said he was speeding--
Actually Dell pleaded guilty to speeding the day before he was convicted.
Yes, Dell plead guilty to the speeding. My point was that the police took the word of three aggravating attackers that Dell was speeding & cite him for it.
I have been doing five miles under a speed limit before, only to have pedestrians yell to me to slow down. I have been told by police that they can't do anything if they didn't see it--but if my house were robbed & i shot the guy, though they didn't see it, they would try to charge me with something--even though they didn't see it. I just wanted to point out the duplicity that has gone on over this.
The question is: Were Dells assailants speeding too? The chased him & cornered him & threatened him & his girl. Were they charged for any of their wrongful actions--as far as any of us knows, no. Dell was abused simply because he is a high profile target. Wether you like him or not, what occurred that day was wrong, he was the only one charged, he admitted to speeding after being accosted--but haw fast was he going? His assailants? What was the ticket written for? Ten miles over? 25? one? regardless of the fact that he admitted to it or not--by all rights he should not have been charged for speeding. If my arguments in defense are somewhat loose, sorry, I get a half hour for lunch & it was the best I could come up with. I hope he appeals all of the charges & forces those assailants to be charged & fined as well. He most certainly is able to civilly charge everyone of them with child endangerment & aggravated assault should he desire--I hope he does. Justice needs to be equal, not unequal under the law.
See less See more
Point taken. :)
You're saying that Dell's lawyers must have been very inept to let all these points go unanswered, huh? I think what we have here is the Utah equivalent of an O.J. Simpson verdict.

I can just see it now. We have these "thugs" (your unwarranted pejoritive language) looking at a car coming down their street. "Oh, look! It's Super Dell, and he's driving at least a mile over the speed limit. Let's go have some fun and harass him!"

No, perhaps I'm wrong to think that they were outraged by his ADMITTED speeding through the neighborhood, endangering everyone. I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you were there when it happened. Can you tell us, did they chase him down in their cars? Did they run on foot after him and find him when he stopped? Did they know it was Super Dell as he sped by, or did they know that only when he stopped? And if they knew from the first that it was Super Dell, was it because that wasn't the first time he put lives in danger?

And since you were also there at the trial, tell us how the whole thing occurred. Come on, with your great expertise and fairness, give us the whole scenario.
See less See more
Mjolnir said:
... [blah blah blah] ...
Chill out. If you have a point to make, do so without being a sarcastic ***.
Ax to grind Mj?

There was fault on both sides.
I wanted to be at the trial but was barred from going. Mitch Velos, Dell's attorney hired me as an expert witness to explain the Tueller drill, and handgun tacttics in brief. I also was the person that certified Dell for his CCW back in 1998.

Because I was testifying I was not allowed to hear anyone else's testimony.

1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.