Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, May 3, 2014.
So who are you blaming? The homeowner who is tired of his home being burglarized? Or the teenager on the homeowner's property without permission?
I might be in the minority and I'm in no way defending these so called "traps" but the one thing I always go back to is these teenagers should have never been there in the first place.
Obviously a tragedy. But what about common sense for the teenager? Should you be entering someone else's unlit garage at 12 midnight? Is this right or wrong?
If I walked out and found someone in my garage at 12 midnight, and had been burglarized twice in last 3 weeks, and the police had not apprehended the burglar, I may give them both barrells from my Browning side by side 12 gauge first, and sort things out later.
while I agree with you that killing the kid was wrong-do not forget the kid was stealing- river I go over to whorechant occasionally to see what they are saying and instead of criticizing Jameis for STEALING, most are saying it was only crablegs and Publix can afford it- well while they should not have shot the kid he was STEALING-however it appears to me you are using the same type of rationale
To me, the criminal wrongdoing in the Minnesota case all starts after the guy initially fired in self-defense against the criminals in his home. Here... sorry, shouldn't have tried to rob the place. I flatly reject any interpretation of the homicide statute that makes an indispensable assumption that human beings are helpless to do anything but go commit a felony against an apparently easy or obvious target, there should be no consideration given to it whatsoever.
I don't think anyone is going to defend the teen, saying it's OK to enter someone's home to steal. Whether thru breaking a window or an open garage door.
The question is whether that warrants an execution.
If their castle doctrine is typical, the presumption that it was reasonable to fire is a rebuttable one; rebut it. Castle doctrines don't actually give a license to kill, they give a homeowner the benefit of the doubt that can be disproven by the evidence at hand. My only issue is that I don't accept as evidence the idea that the criminal was "baited" into committing an intent crime.
Sad story. I think this is a preview of coming events as police budgets and subsequent responses are trimmed (see Detroit) and people are charged with defending themselves. The death penalty is way too high of a price to pay for burglary; but, how is the homeowner to divine the thoughts of whomever is in his house?
A friend of mine once challenged me when I was bemoaning my ticket "for running a yellow light" when he asked: "Have you ever gone through a red light and not gotten a ticket?" Of course, I had. Lessons learned - don't drive aggressively and don't go into someone's home you don't belong.
This was a trap set up to bait someone to enter the garage.....how do you know the kid was stealing? He was enticed to enter the garage by the display of the purse.......was his intent to steal it or tell the owner she left her purse in a lit garage?
Baited to commit the crime or baited to be executed?
Really, nana? "Shortly after midnight"?
Maybe he wasn't baited into committing a crime......maybe he saw a purse left in a lit garage with the door open and wanted to let the owner know.
I'm surprised you more outspoken Christians aren't all over this. After all isn't a particular bit of scripture instructive in this matter - vengeance is mine sayeth The Lord? This was clearly an act of vengeance.
Seems some play a little fast and loose with gods instructions.
Again, after midnight. Intent can be inferred by action. If he was certain enough that the homeowner was awake and wanted to let them know, they invented these things called "front doors".
Unsurprisingly, someone with absolute and unabashed contempt for Christianity doesn't have the first clue what they are talking about when pulling scriptural soundbites. Push me over with a feather.
By the by, why am I better at secular government than you? Does a good Christian lay out a honeypot, probably not. Does that make it criminal, no.
again, doesn't excuse the teen. but he's not the one being charged with a crime. The homeowner is. If he did in fact leave the purse in view and garage door open as a trap with monitors in place, he thought about what he was doing. And he would have thought about what his response was going to be.
In this case, his response was to grab his shotgun and fire four times into the dark, killing whoever was in his garage.
Sounds pretty premeditated, doesn't it? "I'm going to leave a bait and kill whoever takes it."
What if it had been just after dark and it was a 10-year-old chasing a soccer ball that went up into his driveway?
Defending one's home is one thing but should the law or our culture allow homeowners to set traps to bait and entice someone to enter the home so that they can be shot as "criminals"?
Then that would be a fact that could rebut the presumption that firing was reasonable. Duh? In the actual case, where is the fact that makes it unreasonable to fire on the person criminally inside your home? Does a homeowner have a positive duty in your mind to make their home as unappealing to a burglar as possible, because burglars are just involuntary muscles that are gonna burgle?
If any one is rationalizing anything, it would appear you are rationalizing murder because this kid was stealing. In what world does this punishment fit the crime?
Jameis Winston got a citation for stealing. That seems more reasonable to me. Call me crazy.
has nothing to do with the case. he's not being charged with leaving his garage door open. he's been charged with deliberately killing the kid.
As I said on the Minnesota thread, I don't have a problem with setting a trap to catch the thief. I have a problem with setting a trap to kill him.