Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, May 3, 2014.
i think we should just shoot everyone to be sure.
What the hell? he sat there and waited for them of course he did.
Maybe the homeowner was a Muslim.
You could theoretically also say it all started with the shooter's desire to kill.
He had a live in girlfriend, a child with said girlfriend, and they found marijuana in his home. If he is a Muslim, he's not a very good Muslim.
I think some are using this case as a stand in for a broad, sweeping statement. This case is an extreme and to some extent an anomaly.
Should burglary be punishable by death? Of course not. But home invasion is due to the unknown factors. IN A NORMAL situation, the homeowner does not have the luxury to ask if the burglar is there to do harm or to steal. Worse case scenario MUST be assumed to protect innocents.
And for the snarky...just shoot everyone....When someone is IN your house after midnight uninvited, and you do not know their intentions...that is not everyone...that is a very small slice of the population.
AS I have said earlier...this case is not a normal burglary. I think the homeowner should be tried, and based on the facts that I know of he should be found guilty. But by no means should that be the norm for a home invader who gets killed.
I will take that as a "no, I can not..."
No he didn't.
Let me put it another way, if this kid was not out breaking the law he would still be alive. The story here is don't be trespassing and looking to steal from others.
That's part of the story. Just ask the guy who have been convicted of murder.
There's two stories here IMO. One, don't be trespassing and looking to steal from others. Two, don't plan on murdering someone and think you're going to get away with it, especially if you're dumb enough to tell people that you're planning on doing it (or recording the whole thing, like the other case).
The fact is, if you don't fear for your life, and you shoot someone in your home, it's murder. Will it be almost impossible to prove your actual fear? Sure. Will you get the benefit of the doubt? Probably, as it's your story vs. a dead persons, and after all, they were the ones breaking into your house. It's still murder, you'll just not be a convicted murderer, you know, like OJ. Based off (my limited knowledge) these latest two cases, it's my opinion that not only did the two shooters not "fear" for their lives, they premeditated killing someone before they actually did.
Had the shooting victims lived, the shooters should be tried for attempted murder and the dumbass kids should be thrown in jail for B&E. I would think in most cases with a home invasion type shooting that yes, you clearly could say it all started with the one person that broke into the other's house. These two latest ones I think required dumbass moves by two parties to have such tragic results.
No doubt Hall. All I'm saying is we have situation in which neither individual was right in what they did, the question is where do we go from here. One is dead and the other is going away for the rest of his life.
Not entirely accurate, in Florida anyway.
I agree with the opening part of your post on the two sides and it's spot on. Those of us that have been trained appropriately, in the instance when someone breaks into your house and you and your family are present, know exactly what to do.
Deserve is a poor choice of words here. Was there an expectation that, in going after the purse, he could potentially be shot by the homeowner. IMO, yes.
Did the guy who ran the red light "deserve" to be hit by cross traffic? No. Was their a reasonable expectation that he would? Yes. Does he (or his family presuming he dies in the accident) have the right to sue the guy who hit him? No. He gave up that right when he ran the red light.
Well, it's a pretty stupid burglar that doesn't assume this or similar risk when he makes the choice to trespass and steal from others.
It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment for me. IMO, when you choose to trespass and rob another you forgo certain "rights" and you assume certain risks, among them death.
It's only a "trap" because the decedent chose to commit a crime.
CAVEAT: agree to the first clause; disagree as to the second, as I know nothing about the vic's parents, so I wouldn't make any presumptions--certainly not to judge them.