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.
What bravery? The kid was trying to hide, and the old man didn't even give him a chance to leave, but shot him in cold blood. Manslaughter at the very least in my opinion.
And this is one of many reasons why I didn't move to the Chicago area when offered a position by my current employer. When I determine that there is an intruder in my house, I don't have to make sure of his intent. I don't have to check to make sure he is armed or not. I don't have to give him a fighting chance. I don't have to give him a chance to leave. Section 3 of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15 already gives me the presumption that I am in imminent danger and can act accordingly. This applies to my place of employment, my car or any place else I have a legal right to be.
The only thing I see wrong is that the old man didn't drop the thug where he crouched.
And this is one of many reasons why I didn't move to the Chicago area when offered a position by my current employer. When I determine that there is an intruder in my house, I don't have to make sure of his intent. I don't have to check to make sure he is armed or not. I don't have to give him a fighting chance. I don't have to give him a chance to leave. Section 3 of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15 already gives me the presumption that I am in imminent danger and can act accordingly. This applies to my place of employment, my car or any place else I have a legal right to be.
The only thing I see wrong is that the old man didn't drop the thug where he crouched.
The laws that say you have to give the perp "time to exit" are so bogus. It is the exact amount of time the perp needs to kill you. He didn't break into the house to play checkers with the owner. At the very least he wanted to empty every cent he could steal from the owner.
Some people don't realize who the victims are anymore. Oh the poor thief.
Last edited by 1AngryTaxPayer; 09-29-2011 at 06:02 PM..
Gun control is never having to say, "I missed you".
What a great day for tax payers. A bullet that cost about $0.13 and a $3,000 autopsy instead of throwing away and wasting nearly $1 Million on pre-trial confinement, trial, incarceration and a useless parole system that bleeds the economy dry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
You have to wonder if this kid would have even committed this crime if there had not been such high unemployment for the past three years.
There's no relationship between unemployment and crime, or even poverty and crime. No one commits crimes to buy food to feed their family or pay rent. They commit crimes to buy iPods and cell-phones and Starter jackets and Nikes and gold necklaces and hip-hop clothing and drugs or alcohol and other useless non-essential things.
Or they do because they can, or because it's fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
Ok, I just read the article...the male teen was crouching behind the kitchen table...
What a loser. I just hope the old man didn't get blood back-spatter on him. It will ruin your clothes, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
But I am suggesting maybe the teen was trying to get away from gangsters or something.
If he had been at home in bed, or at least at home where he should have been, he'd still be alive. No great loss here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
Instead they shot, killed, a man who was 'crouching' behind the kitchen table....
Yeah, well, that's what happens when you B&E a home that isn't yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
I'm just saying...why so quick to villify this kid when we'll never know what his intent was...
Because in the real world, you don't have time to play 20 Questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
If this family decides to get a lawyer...this man will have a lot of explaining to do...
It's not a wrongful death, but I'm sure the family will sue, because that's the kind of empty morals and values *******s have rammed down everyone's throat in public schools for the last 40 years.
A home-hater was killed in the park across from my house when a police car drove through the park at night taking a short-cut while pursuing a suspect. She was trespassing and sleeping in the park. Police cruiser ran her over and killed her while she was sleeping off a drunken crack stupor.
She was on the streets for 6 years. Where was her family? Nowhere to be found. She gets run over by a police cruiser and her family crawls out from under every rock and sewer because they smell money and file a suit against the city (dismissed so us taxpayers didn't have to pay for stupidity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
1. Was the kid armed? no...
Not relevant under statute or case law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
2. Was he running at you? no...
Not relevant under statute or case law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
3. Did they have a menacing look on their face? no...
Not relevant under statute or case law. Obviously you aren't aware that the Elements of Proof for Robbery do not require a weapon. It only requires that the victim be in fear. The type of fear is irrelevant. Merely the fear of losing money is sufficient fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
4. Did you verbally warn intruder you were armed, thus giving them a chance to surrender?? no....
Not relevant under statute or case law. He was a home owner, not a Marine sentry on guard duty and obligated to say, "Halt! Who goes there?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
Attorney: then where was the threat???...huh??
There was an intruder in the home. That's threat enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earlyretired
Actually Illinois in spite of having an unconstitutional ban on bearing arms has a pretty good law on self defense in the home...
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(720 ILCS 5/2‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑8)
Sec. 2‑8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88‑277; 89‑428, eff. 12‑13‑95; 89‑462, eff. 5‑29‑96.)
Interesting that the first definition of "Forcible Felony" is Treason
The old man was completely within the law and the family has no case...
No doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
What if it could be proven that the teens 'intent' wasn't to rob, but rather to 'hide' from an outside threat??
Intent isn't relevant. If someone is shot and car-jacks a car to drive to the hospital for treatment, those facts are not relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
What if testimony came up in court that a witness saw the young man being chased minutes earlier??
So what if it did? It's still a felony. During daylight hours it's Housebreaking or Breaking & Entering (States have different names) but during hours of darkness, it is Burglary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
And the defense attorney would have to proove or create the impression that this man would of lost his life, had he not fired his weapon...
Not true. You're authorized to use deadly force to protect life from both death or serious bodily harm. You may also use deadly force to protect your property. You may not use deadly force to protect the property of others, except under certain circumstances, but law enforcement officers can.
Your legal skills are really weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
You can paint this any colour you want but you folks have obviously become so inurred to crime happening to others you're busily apologizing for this little cretin by giving him the benefit of the doubt with living in a poor area, unemplyment rates and a bunch of other hoopla.
One day they'll figure out that when the choose not to tolerate crime, there will be significantly less crime.
So long as they are willing to tolerate crime, it will continue.
In the not-too-distant future, people might have to choose between Food Stamps and executing repeat offenders to save money. I guess some people would rather starve to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
What bravery? The kid was trying to hide, and the old man didn't even give him a chance to leave, but shot him in cold blood. Manslaughter at the very least in my opinion.
Of course he was trying to hide. As soon as the old man turned his back the kid would have attacked him ransacked the house for stuff to steal.
What a great day for tax payers. A bullet that cost about $0.13 and a $3,000 autopsy instead of throwing away and wasting nearly $1 Million on pre-trial confinement, trial, incarceration and a useless parole system that bleeds the economy dry.
There's no relationship between unemployment and crime, or even poverty and crime. No one commits crimes to buy food to feed their family or pay rent. They commit crimes to buy iPods and cell-phones and Starter jackets and Nikes and gold necklaces and hip-hop clothing and drugs or alcohol and other useless non-essential things.
Or they do because they can, or because it's fun.
What a loser. I just hope the old man didn't get blood back-spatter on him. It will ruin your clothes, you know.
If he had been at home in bed, or at least at home where he should have been, he'd still be alive. No great loss here.
Yeah, well, that's what happens when you B&E a home that isn't yours.
Because in the real world, you don't have time to play 20 Questions.
It's not a wrongful death, but I'm sure the family will sue, because that's the kind of empty morals and values *******s have rammed down everyone's throat in public schools for the last 40 years.
A home-hater was killed in the park across from my house when a police car drove through the park at night taking a short-cut while pursuing a suspect. She was trespassing and sleeping in the park. Police cruiser ran her over and killed her while she was sleeping off a drunken crack stupor.
She was on the streets for 6 years. Where was her family? Nowhere to be found. She gets run over by a police cruiser and her family crawls out from under every rock and sewer because they smell money and file a suit against the city (dismissed so us taxpayers didn't have to pay for stupidity).
Not relevant under statute or case law.
Not relevant under statute or case law.
Not relevant under statute or case law. Obviously you aren't aware that the Elements of Proof for Robbery do not require a weapon. It only requires that the victim be in fear. The type of fear is irrelevant. Merely the fear of losing money is sufficient fear.
Not relevant under statute or case law. He was a home owner, not a Marine sentry on guard duty and obligated to say, "Halt! Who goes there?"
There was an intruder in the home. That's threat enough.
No doubt.
Intent isn't relevant. If someone is shot and car-jacks a car to drive to the hospital for treatment, those facts are not relevant.
So what if it did? It's still a felony. During daylight hours it's Housebreaking or Breaking & Entering (States have different names) but during hours of darkness, it is Burglary.
Not true. You're authorized to use deadly force to protect life from both death or serious bodily harm. You may also use deadly force to protect your property. You may not use deadly force to protect the property of others, except under certain circumstances, but law enforcement officers can.
Your legal skills are really weak.
One day they'll figure out that when the choose not to tolerate crime, there will be significantly less crime.
So long as they are willing to tolerate crime, it will continue.
In the not-too-distant future, people might have to choose between Food Stamps and executing repeat offenders to save money. I guess some people would rather starve to death.
Of course he was trying to hide. As soon as the old man turned his back the kid would have attacked him ransacked the house for stuff to steal.
Yeah, but people like that are allowed to vote.
Can you please run for DA of CA next go round? Specifically SD County.
It seems like the general belief in this thread is that when a home owner owns a gun he should always shoot and never question. So if this is the belief then it seems cops should do the same and never question or take control of a situation.
Everyone good with that?
Why is death the only acceptable outcome? Seems a little extreme when not threatened... a cowering 18 yo isn't threatening in my mind.... I don't care how old this joker is his finger on the trigger is all I would care about if he pointed it towards me.
Guess there is no sympathy here for the foreigner that mistook a house for where he was headed and was shot as an intruder... those students are pretty scary bunches... especially the nerdy ones, the damage they can do with those pocket protectors., It could have been ugly.
So is owning a gun means you don't have to discern when to fire?
For the record, I do support people protecting themselves, but seems it should be from imminent danger. great responsability comes to those that chose to own a gun.
What a great day for tax payers. A bullet that cost about $0.13 and a $3,000 autopsy instead of throwing away and wasting nearly $1 Million on pre-trial confinement, trial, incarceration and a useless parole system that bleeds the economy dry.
There's no relationship between unemployment and crime, or even poverty and crime. No one commits crimes to buy food to feed their family or pay rent. They commit crimes to buy iPods and cell-phones and Starter jackets and Nikes and gold necklaces and hip-hop clothing and drugs or alcohol and other useless non-essential things.
Or they do because they can, or because it's fun.
What a loser. I just hope the old man didn't get blood back-spatter on him. It will ruin your clothes, you know.
If he had been at home in bed, or at least at home where he should have been, he'd still be alive. No great loss here.
Yeah, well, that's what happens when you B&E a home that isn't yours.
Because in the real world, you don't have time to play 20 Questions.
It's not a wrongful death, but I'm sure the family will sue, because that's the kind of empty morals and values *******s have rammed down everyone's throat in public schools for the last 40 years.
A home-hater was killed in the park across from my house when a police car drove through the park at night taking a short-cut while pursuing a suspect. She was trespassing and sleeping in the park. Police cruiser ran her over and killed her while she was sleeping off a drunken crack stupor.
She was on the streets for 6 years. Where was her family? Nowhere to be found. She gets run over by a police cruiser and her family crawls out from under every rock and sewer because they smell money and file a suit against the city (dismissed so us taxpayers didn't have to pay for stupidity).
Not relevant under statute or case law.
Not relevant under statute or case law.
Not relevant under statute or case law. Obviously you aren't aware that the Elements of Proof for Robbery do not require a weapon. It only requires that the victim be in fear. The type of fear is irrelevant. Merely the fear of losing money is sufficient fear.
Not relevant under statute or case law. He was a home owner, not a Marine sentry on guard duty and obligated to say, "Halt! Who goes there?"
There was an intruder in the home. That's threat enough.
No doubt.
Intent isn't relevant. If someone is shot and car-jacks a car to drive to the hospital for treatment, those facts are not relevant.
So what if it did? It's still a felony. During daylight hours it's Housebreaking or Breaking & Entering (States have different names) but during hours of darkness, it is Burglary.
Not true. You're authorized to use deadly force to protect life from both death or serious bodily harm. You may also use deadly force to protect your property. You may not use deadly force to protect the property of others, except under certain circumstances, but law enforcement officers can.
Your legal skills are really weak.
One day they'll figure out that when the choose not to tolerate crime, there will be significantly less crime.
So long as they are willing to tolerate crime, it will continue.
In the not-too-distant future, people might have to choose between Food Stamps and executing repeat offenders to save money. I guess some people would rather starve to death.
Of course he was trying to hide. As soon as the old man turned his back the kid would have attacked him ransacked the house for stuff to steal.
Yeah, but people like that are allowed to vote.
Will you stop being so mean to me and listen for a moment...
First...you have no evidence that this kid was a 'thug'....
Heck, many Senators and Congressmen and even cops, when younger did silly things like that also in small towns all across America...
They didn't pay for it with their lives though...and later grew up, matured and are now successful....
I would defanitly have to dismiss you as a jury sense you seem to be bias towards this kid, that you never met before....
Your assigning bad traits to this kid, but have never met them....
He would not get a fair trial with you on the jury or as judge...
And I could not allow you to carry a gun or have a badge with that attitude...the presumtion that every city kid is evil and deserves to die, would greatly effect your ability to perform as a cop....
Your just to bias to be a cop, a judge or serve on a jury....
You have to be more balanced than that, in order to serve the public...
You can't seek public office, be given authority, just to use that office to satisfy inner biases....
Will you stop being so mean to me and listen for a moment...
First...you have no evidence that this kid was a 'thug'....
Heck, many Senators and Congressmen and even cops, when younger did silly things like that also in small towns all across America...
They didn't pay for it with their lives though...and later grew up, matured and are now successful....
I would defanitly have to dismiss you as a jury sense you seem to be bias towards this kid, that you never met before....
Your assigning bad traits to this kid, but have never met them....
He would not get a fair trial with you on the jury or as judge...
And I could not allow you to carry a gun or have a badge with that attitude...the presumtion that every city kid is evil and deserves to die, would greatly effect your ability to perform as a cop....
Your just to bias to be a cop, a judge or serve on a jury....
You have to be more balanced than that, in order to serve the public...
You can't seek public office, be given authority, just to use that office to satisfy inner biases....
Please,....get a life.
No one is applying for jury duty or public service.
The thug had thrown a rock through the kitchen window. If he was just "visiting" why not knock on the front door?
Anyone breaking and entering a private residence is a criminal (committing a crime). It is better that the 80-year-old is alive to tell his story, rather than the 18 year old.
Don't do the crime if you don't want to pay the consequences. Did the young man think that the old man would bring him flowers instead of a gun?
I just cannot understand why some folks are trying to defend this kid for B/E. This kid broke into a home that was not his and it wasn't to hide from gang members ... his intent was to steal from an old helpless man (so he thought). Why in the hell would the home owner call out to burglar and give up his advantage to waste the punk. How did the home owner know this punk was not alone. If you are threatened (especially in your home with an intruder) .. you are out to protect yourself and family. Your adrenal is at it's peak. You do not have time to hesitate or you may be the victim. You're in my house without an invite ... adios amigo.
It seems like the general belief in this thread is that when a home owner owns a gun he should always shoot and never question. So if this is the belief then it seems cops should do the same and never question or take control of a situation.
Everyone good with that?
Why is death the only acceptable outcome? Seems a little extreme when not threatened... a cowering 18 yo isn't threatening in my mind.... I don't care how old this joker is his finger on the trigger is all I would care about if he pointed it towards me.
Guess there is no sympathy here for the foreigner that mistook a house for where he was headed and was shot as an intruder... those students are pretty scary bunches... especially the nerdy ones, the damage they can do with those pocket protectors., It could have been ugly.
So is owning a gun means you don't have to discern when to fire?
For the record, I do support people protecting themselves, but seems it should be from imminent danger. great responsability comes to those that chose to own a gun.
Ya, this guy was getting ready to graduate from Harvard, with honors. He must have been drunk and forget where his dorm room was.
"No charges have been announced in connection with the shooting."
That says all you need to know...
Now we just need to have our rights restored and get some kind of carry here in Illinois...
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.
Specifically SD County.
