Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sick people. I don't blame the homeowner, but I also don't get excited over the justifiable killing of a 15 year old kid. Thats something a sociopath would celebrate.
He's not an accessory to murder, he's a burglar. We can't make up crimes to charge him just because you want him to serve a longer sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
I agree, I have never understood the logic of charging someone with a crime that they didn't intend to commit. It just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work as a deterrent, because because the person didn't intend for, or want it to happen in the first place.
It's especially bazaar in a case like this one. The 15 year old was killed because of the actions of a trigger happy homeowner. The 17 year old had nothing to to with that. He should be charged with the crime that he was committing, attempted burglary.
Of course you haven't. So here's a test to determine whether you really lack critical thinking skills or have merely been so thoroughly indoctrinated that you can only believe one way.
The 15 year old and the 17 year old conspired to commit a burglary together. By so doing and regardless of actual intent, each became fully culpable for any outcome that occurred. Unfortunately, their joint act resulted in an unplanned, un-premeditated death. Therefore, the surviving, would-be burglar has been charged with 2nd degree murder. It's the law. Capiche?
The homeowner is also held harmless by the law - the Castle Doctrine - which permits him to protect himself, his family, his home/castle, etc. I doubt he was trigger happy as you claimed in your feeble attempt to belittle the intended victim. More likely he feared for his safety when he was approached by one of the burglars after confronting them in the middle of the night. I would have and I'm a combat veteran and a former cop. I don't scare easy. I, too, would have shot.
My point is, that to trivialize killing a 15 a year old kid, as teaching him a lesson, is just perverse logic. Since he is dead, obviously there is no lesson for him to learn.
The SCOTUS has ruled that executing a minor is cruel and unusual punishment. To allow a homeowner to be the judge, jury and executioner of a 15 year old kid, is just sick. That is vigilante justice, and not something that should ever happen a civilized society.
Funny thing about that judge, jury and executioner theory... the homeowner did not go to the 15 or 17 year old kids' homes, seeking to gun them down. The kids went to the homeowner. It was the ill intent displayed by those worthless theiving kids, along with the potential threat they posed that got that 15 y/o killed.
Isn't it just perverse logic to offer support for the criminal while at the same time blaming the victim for the fate created by the criminal's illegal actions?
Of course you haven't. So here's a test to determine whether you really lack critical thinking skills or have merely been so thoroughly indoctrinated that you can only believe one way.
The 15 year old and the 17 year old conspired to commit a burglary together. By so doing and regardless of actual intent, each became fully culpable for any outcome that occurred. Unfortunately, their joint act resulted in an unplanned, un-premeditated death. Therefore, the surviving, would-be burglar has been charged with 2nd degree murder. It's the law. Capiche?
The homeowner is also held harmless by the law - the Castle Doctrine - which permits him to protect himself, his family, his home/castle, etc. I doubt he was trigger happy as you claimed in your feeble attempt to belittle the intended victim. More likely he feared for his safety when he was approached by one of the burglars after confronting them in the middle of the night. I would have and I'm a combat veteran and a former cop. I don't scare easy. I, too, would have shot.
Do you get it now or is it still over your head?
I know the law, I'm saying it's a stupid law and should be done away with re the 17 year old. I don't care about the 15 year old whatsoever. He was shot, dead. He took the risk and that's it. The laws punishing the 17 year old are ridiculous though.
My point is, that to trivialize killing a 15 a year old kid, as teaching him a lesson, is just perverse logic. Since he is dead, obviously there is no lesson for him to learn.
The SCOTUS has ruled that executing a minor is cruel and unusual punishment. To allow a homeowner to be the judge, jury and executioner of a 15 year old kid, is just sick. That is vigilante justice, and not something that should ever happen a civilized society.
If you're in your home and someone is breaking into it, you're life is in danger, you have every right to kill anyone breaking into your home. Very likely someone who would do a home invasion is armed and will kill the occupants of the home to steal their money and things.
The problem is that 15 year olds are breaking into homes. You have to do something about them before they reach that point. Most likely the kid wanted money for his next drug fix or he's become involved with gangs. The homeowner certainly wasn't wrong but also your big government isn't doing anything about the problem of the inner cities. No one is setting these kids straight or getting them a future of any kind. Not the parents, not the schools.
The problem needs to be addressed at some point before the kid is so addicted to drugs that he will do anything to get money for them.
I know the law, I'm saying it's a stupid law and should be done away with re the 17 year old. I don't care about the 15 year old whatsoever. He was shot, dead. He took the risk and that's it. The laws punishing the 17 year old are ridiculous though.
No its not at all. If you send someone to break into a home and a death results you are just as culpable as the one doing the crime. You set it up and helped create the situation that caused the death. Its not any different than if you hired someone to kill your spouse. You may not have pulled the trigger but you are responsible for the situation non the less. You just aren't able to think in abstract thoughts.
Sick people. I don't blame the homeowner, but I also don't get excited over the justifiable killing of a 15 year old kid. Thats something a sociopath would celebrate.
Folks are just tired of a certain segment of the population running amok and committing crimes at an alarming rate and no one is doing anything about it. So sometimes the frustration manifests itself into the posts you see.
Folks are just tired of a certain segment of the population running amok and committing crimes at an alarming rate and no one is doing anything about it. So sometimes the frustration manifests itself into the posts you see.
The liberals will wring their hands over the deaths but they aren't doing a thing to stop the 15 year olds from getting into home invasion crimes in the first place.
There is no point in making it illegal to shoot someone committing home invasion if they are below a certain age. And if the 15 year old gets by with doing home invasions, he'll continue doing them when he's 16, 17, 18 and on. What liberals do not want to do is look at the root causes, they want to insist that burglars and home invaders be protected while they commit their serious acts of crime.
Some of these kids are young enough to save, their lives can be turned around --- but no one wants to make the effort to do so. Even kids from rotten families and rotten schools can be turned around before they've become hardened and dangerous criminals. No one stepped in with this kid -- so it's too late now for all the hand wringing. With the job situation the way it is, there wasn't much hope for him any how.
What drives a 15 year old to burglarize someone's home? Whatever happened to respect for others and their property?
The 17 year old who was with him, is an accessory to murder. I wonder if he will be tried as an adult?
It's all about race.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, I have never understood the logic of charging someone with a crime that they didn't intend to commit. It just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work as a deterrent, because because the person didn't intend for, or want it to happen in the first place. 
