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.
LOL! And if the police followed that kind of process they'd never arrest anyone. However, being arrested is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime. The police do and should arrest people for suspision of a crime, which is what happened. And with no proof that they did own the house, the police did what was right which was to taken them into custody until they could prove they owned the house.
If the police did what you wanted them to, and the people in question HAD been there to steal something or worse, then you'd be pissed that the police didn't do their job to protect the neighborhood. And you'd be right to be upset that they had criminals in their grasp and didn't do anything.
And the most the neighbors could maybe be charged with is tresspassing, but even that is a stretch. They didn't assault anyone, and they definately didn't "misuse" their fire arms. That's exactly what a fire arm is for, protecting your family and neighborhood.
It is illegal to detain someone at gunpoint when they've done nothing wrong. The couple changing locks did nothing wrong. Unlawful detention is against the law.
Weren't you also making up hypothetical situations and making assumptions about what i would do - effectively deflecting from the actual issue being discussed?
Pot - meet kettle.
Yes I was; directed specificly towards you for "hypothesizing and attributing" all sorts of stuff not in evidence towards justifying the behaviour of two idiots.
You deflect when you suggest they were motivated by concern for the safety or well being of either the neighbours themselves or their property those are obfuscations intended to deflect.
Hypothetical's such as yours aimed at ascribing some thought process towards these two to justify their behaviour are the problem we're attempting to clear up with simply looking at the facts:
Kalgonis's -
No crime being committed.
Owner permission to be on property.
Gun-toting inbreds -
Trespassed on private property.
Illegally detained two people.
Threatened two people with firearms.
So explain to me how holding someone at gun point and detaining them is legal. Why aren't the neighbors charged? Can't say the police performance was any better....
Yes I was; directed specificly towards you for "hypothesizing and attributing" all sorts of stuff not in evidence towards justifying the behaviour of two idiots.
You deflect when you suggest they were motivated by concern for the safety or well being of either the neighbours themselves or their property those are obfuscations intended to deflect.
Hypothetical's such as yours aimed at ascribing some thought process towards these two to justify their behaviour are the problem we're attempting to clear up with simply looking at the facts:
Kalgonis's -
No crime being committed.
Owner permission to be on property.
Gun-toting inbreds -
Trespassed on private property.
Illegally detained two people.
Threatened two people with firearms.
Kettle - meet Fry Pan!
I am basing the neighbors intentions based on the known facts! You are reading motivations into their behavior that are not evident based on the knowledge both of us have which is solely obtained from a newspaper report. How could you possibly consider my analysis of the situation based on the reported events as a hypothetical inference? They stated that they went next door to protect the property - you are making up junk like calling them "inbred gun nuts" - and "Rambo types".
So explain to me how holding someone at gun point and detaining them is legal. Why aren't the neighbors charged? Can't say the police performance was any better....
The neighbors were indeed charged. Aggravated assault, criminal trespass and false imprisonment. Sounds about right.
You apparently think that invisible lines represent physical barriers that cannot be crossed. If someone is threatening the one property they are also threatening the neighborhood(don't give the ridiculous "the Kalonji's weren't threatening anything" line - we have already been over this ground - the Canoles' didn't know that and you can sit there in your chair with hindsight and be smug in your current knowledge - it doesn't change what the situation was) and it warrants investigation.
That many people on this forum acknowledge this is evident by the repeated urging to "call the police". Why - it isn't the police departments property? Oh - it is in the community and thus the police have a duty to defend it? Bingo! And if they cops aren't able to get there in a timely manner, or if you don't think the cops should have been involved at all(the Canoles' could have dealt with this situation in a non-confrontational manner, whithout using their weapons, and simply verifying the Kalonji's story) then it is incumbent on the residents to secure their own neighborhood.
Again - there is this mentality that we should be isolated, anti-social, non caring about others and their property - or you can be like BruSan who thinks that since the property is unoccupied it is unworthy to be defended. This isolationist atitude is going to be part of our societiy's downfall.
You apparently think that invisible lines represent physical barriers that cannot be crossed.
Oh, not at all. As evidenced by the criminal trespass charges filed against the Canoles, lawbreakers cross property barriers all the time.
Quote:
If someone is threatening the one property they are also threatening the neighborhood
And it so happens that while you have extensive rights to protect your own property, you don't get to patrol "the neighborhood" as you see fit. That imaginary line means "not yours".
Quote:
(don't give the ridiculous "the Kalonji's weren't threatening anything" line - we have already been over this ground - the Canoles' didn't know that and you can sit there in your chair with hindsight and be smug in your current knowledge - it doesn't change what the situation was)
No need to repeat yourself - you have established firmly over several post that the Canoles didn't have the first clue as to what the situation was.
Quote:
and it warrants investigation.
This is where the legal construct of "property" again comes into play. You're not entitled to stroll onto my property with your gun out to "investigate", and I don't much care what you feel, think or believe as justification.
Quote:
Again - there is this mentality that we should be isolated, anti-social, non caring about others and their property
Calling the Law would have been the smart move. Taking one's bang-bang and confronting imaginary wrongdoers, not so much.
Quote:
This isolationist atitude is going to be part of our societiy's downfall.
Yeah, it would have been tragic if the Canoles had minded their own business.
You apparently think that invisible lines represent physical barriers that cannot be crossed. If someone is threatening the one property they are also threatening the neighborhood(don't give the ridiculous "the Kalonji's weren't threatening anything" line - we have already been over this ground - the Canoles' didn't know that and you can sit there in your chair with hindsight and be smug in your current knowledge - it doesn't change what the situation was) and it warrants investigation. Again - there is this mentality that we should be isolated, anti-social, non caring about others and their property - or you can be like BruSan who thinks that since the property is unoccupied it is unworthy to be defended. This isolationist atitude is going to be part of our societiy's downfall.
My goodness; suddenly the fact the Kalonji's "were not threatening anyone" becomes a rediculous rejoinder. The fact they were confronted by two mentally challenged inbreds (I call's 'em as I see's 'em) armed with assault rifles when they were committing no crime makes your use of the word rediculous rather erroneous wouldn't you say?
You use silly stuff like the "if someone is threatening the one property, they are also threatening the neighbourhood". They were not a threat to anyone. The Canoles didn't know that? who gives a rat's patoot about what the Canoles knew or didn't know; they made no effort to find out before committing criminal tresspass, unlawful detention and threatening with a firearm. Sheesh!
The Canoles not knowing that is akin to saying "I shot him cause I didn't know he was unarmed." Your obligations as a responsible citizen are to FIRSTLY determine a crime is being committed BEFORE confronting someone with a firearm. You've already admitted this in other posts but now come back with "you can sit there in your chair with hindsight and be smug in your current knowledge" . Uuufduh.These clowns made no effort to garner any facts before they broke the law! FACT.
Attributing a thought to me; BruSan, that I never expressed is now acceptable hypothesizing? I stated or attempted to imply to you as succinctly as possible that the property being empty and them having known the property is empty, should have factored into their rather stupid decision to face the occupants with assault rifles. No threat of personal injury existed to the previous owners, they were gone. I said nothing about an empty property being unworthy of protection. It's the level and format of that protection we're now debating? More deflection perhaps?
The law has stipulations as to what level of force can be used concerning threat to property vs. threat to human life.
Your attempts to deflect and muddy the facts are just silly; the worst part of thati is; you know it!
It does my heart good to see so many wise and thoughtful posts about one's liberty to exist without
proving to strangers that your presence is justifiable. Over in the Trayvon Martin thread, being a Black kid is enough to get you killed...and people will say, "Good."
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.
