Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76412 Nov 28, 2012
I AM sick of hearing from the dead kids' families how they were such good kids.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#76413 Nov 28, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a firm believer that if you make the decision to break into someone's home with the intent of robbing them, you've made the decision to deserve whatever comes your way.
Really? How do you know what their "intent" is? How much do people hate to get to a place where they shoot them dead when you're in no danger? How paranoid do you have to be in order to be so afraid to lose a possession that it's worth more than a life? I'm not saying give your stuff out, but there's a lot of room in between those two extremes.

It's too bad common sense has been lost for some.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#76414 Nov 28, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. I don't blame him for being fed up with being robbed (he'd been robbed several times in the last five years), but shooting stupid kids until they're dead when you're in no immediate danger is beyond wrong.
He could have just shot them in the legs from that vantage point. They'd have limped away as fast as possible and ended up in jail.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76415 Nov 28, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>I'm a firm believer that if you make the decision to break into someone's home with the intent of robbing them, you've made the decision to deserve whatever comes your way.
I agree. One shouldn't have to take ANY risk whatsoever, no matter how minute, that one could be harmed by folks who break into your home. Even if you think someone is incapacitated what's to say they don't come to momentarily and pull a gun and shoot you. And if I were his lawyer I would argue that and also argue that he had no idea how many folks were involved. How is he to know there's not a third or a fourth person waiting upstairs for him. Should he really have to take a chance, leave one of them alive, risk that there are more people upstairs, and also face the risk that one of the two he thought were incapacitated might come to, in his own home?

He should have just killed them right away. Bang bang. One to take em down, one to the head to finish em off, in quick succession. He would have been fine or pumped them with so much lead as they came down the stairs that there is no way they would survive.

I have zero sympathy for those kids, but he will likely go to jail for how he went about it. It was too drawn out.

IMO, two less dirt bags on the earth is something to be celebrated.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76416 Nov 28, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>Really? How do you know what their "intent" is? How much do people hate to get to a place where they shoot them dead when you're in no danger? How paranoid do you have to be in order to be so afraid to lose a possession that it's worth more than a life? I'm not saying give your stuff out, but there's a lot of room in between those two extremes.

It's too bad common sense has been lost for some.
Im pretty sure when someone breaks a window and breaks into your home that they have bad intent.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#76417 Nov 28, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Im pretty sure when someone breaks a window and breaks into your home that they have bad intent.
It was a planned massacre. He should have dialed 911. He didn't. He killed a person after being incapacitated.

Yes, you should defend yourself if someone comes into your home. You don't lie in wait. From a legal dictionary:

"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force."

I guess I was right. Common sense is not so common after all.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76418 Nov 28, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>How paranoid do you have to be in order to be so afraid to lose a possession that it's worth more than a life?

It's too bad common sense has been lost for some.
If i had a choice of the following:

Person A will break into your home and steal your tv and a bunch of shyte or person A will die, i'd choose person A will die every time.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76419 Nov 28, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>It was a planned massacre. He should have dialed 911. He didn't. He killed a person after being incapacitated.

Yes, you should defend yourself if someone comes into your home. You don't lie in wait. From a legal dictionary:

"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force."

I guess I was right. Common sense is not so common after all.
I already said the guy is probably going to be found guilty.

Also citing a law doesn't mean the law is common sense. It's only the law because flaming liberals value the lives of low life scum bags more than they value the right of law abiding citizens to not be subjected to threats of harm in their own home.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76420 Nov 28, 2012
You brak into my house and your life has zero value to me. If I were that guy I would have done it as I said and then laughed at all the people who felt I crossed the line. Don't like how I operate with intruders in my home ... It's simple don't intrude. You break into my home, I'm gonna tow tag ya mother f'er and leave you under a cover.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#76421 Nov 28, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If i had a choice of the following:
Person A will break into your home and steal your tv and a bunch of shyte or person A will die, i'd choose person A will die every time.
And that, my friends, is what is wrong with our country. That's called vigilante unless you felt your life threatened. Not say you thought your life was threatened b/c you want to get out of trouble, that's still being a vigilante.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76422 Nov 28, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>And that, my friends, is what is wrong with our country. That's called vigilante unless you felt your life threatened. Not say you thought your life was threatened b/c you want to get out of trouble, that's still being a vigilante.
until there is zero risk to my and my family's safety, i should be able to be a vigilante in my own home with folks who enter unlawfully.

And you talk about this guy being so messed up to lie in wait, but I image having your home robbed has to be a pretty traumatic experience. Never knowing when lying down at night if they are gonna come back and what they are gonna come back.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76423 Nov 28, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I already said the guy is probably going to be found guilty.
Also citing a law doesn't mean the law is common sense. It's only the law because flaming liberals value the lives of low life scum bags more than they value the right of law abiding citizens to not be subjected to threats of harm in their own home.
What a dumb thing to say. Liberals make all the laws?

Dumb.

“It made sense at the time....”

Since: May 09

Schaumburg, IL

#76424 Nov 28, 2012
Ok, so y'all know i'm not into politics, but i just saw on teh Chicago Tribune website taht former Congressman Mel Reynolds just officially enterd the race to replace jesse jackson jr.

the man was ousted on sex charges 18 years ago! alleged sex w/ an underaged campaign worker! alleged federal financial and campaign fraud charges! actually, since he served time on all three, i don't know if we still ahve to call it "alleged"...

his campaign slogan just slays me - "So he can finish the work." And what work would that be and how does he plan on "finishing' it?!?!? cant wait to see waht the comedians and columnists do with this one!

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#76425 Nov 28, 2012
I think that guy was drinking when he shot those teens execution style. He's probably a chronic alcoholic.
That's why he waited a day to call the police, so he could sober up a little and invent a story.
The man has absolutely no credibility.
Any way I look at it he's a double-murderer in the first degree.
He'll probably go to prison for manslaughter. I don't see him walking away from this hideousness.
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#76426 Nov 28, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? How do you know what their "intent" is? How much do people hate to get to a place where they shoot them dead when you're in no danger? How paranoid do you have to be in order to be so afraid to lose a possession that it's worth more than a life? I'm not saying give your stuff out, but there's a lot of room in between those two extremes.
It's too bad common sense has been lost for some.
They expressed their intent when they entered the dwelling without permission in a forceable manner. Once they were in his house he was entitled to use deadly force..

It is the fact that he shot a second time without provocation at that point or apparent expectation that the intruder would use force against him that has him in trouble
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#76427 Nov 28, 2012
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text> He could have just shot them in the legs from that vantage point. They'd have limped away as fast as possible and ended up in jail.
Or, if they had weapons they could have shot him while they themselves were wounded.
Nope. Once inside the house they were subject to the owners right to defned his dwelling. It doesn't matter that the intruders thought the house was empty.

He would be in more trouble if he had rigged a trip wire to shoot an intruder when he was not home.

I am only being a bit sarcastic to say that the thought process was that he wss not going to let some kid live to sue him.
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#76428 Nov 28, 2012
Aisle Sitter wrote:
Ok, so y'all know i'm not into politics, but i just saw on teh Chicago Tribune website taht former Congressman Mel Reynolds just officially enterd the race to replace jesse jackson jr.
the man was ousted on sex charges 18 years ago! alleged sex w/ an underaged campaign worker! alleged federal financial and campaign fraud charges! actually, since he served time on all three, i don't know if we still ahve to call it "alleged"...
his campaign slogan just slays me - "So he can finish the work." And what work would that be and how does he plan on "finishing' it?!?!? cant wait to see waht the comedians and columnists do with this one!
It is not alleged. Mel Reynolds was convicted. He also made some real big misrepresentations on his resume/biography as well as I recall.

Reynolds predecessor was Gus Savage who resigned because he had gone on an African information trip and was groping Peace Corp workers.

Also testing the waters is Todd Stroger who was massivly booted out of the County Board President office.

The Democrat Party Chairman is Joe Berrios who has said that the ethics rules do not apply to his office as County Assessor and that it is okay for him to use nepotism.

Where is Boundary Painter when we need her? These turkeys are continuing to give Illinois a bad name
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#76429 Nov 28, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a planned massacre. He should have dialed 911. He didn't. He killed a person after being incapacitated.
Yes, you should defend yourself if someone comes into your home. You don't lie in wait. From a legal dictionary:
"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force."
I guess I was right. Common sense is not so common after all.
That applies when you are on teh street. It does not apply when someone breaks into an occupied dwelling
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#76430 Nov 28, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
And that, my friends, is what is wrong with our country. That's called vigilante unless you felt your life threatened. Not say you thought your life was threatened b/c you want to get out of trouble, that's still being a vigilante.
No. Vigilantes affirmatively assume teh role of teh police/ sherrif and pursue people they consider to be wrong doers.

This guy defended himself and his house from a forceable felony as it was occurring. Big difference

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76431 Nov 28, 2012
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
That applies when you are on teh street. It does not apply when someone breaks into an occupied dwelling
It does. Cops and prosecutors have spoken about this. He had zero legal right to shoot them after they were brought to the ground with the first shot. He also had the legal obligation to call the police (to report a shooting) and to call for aid for the injured. Required by law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min JRB 197,226
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 32 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,279,014
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Red_Forman 6,450
News Should prostitution be less illegal-or more? 6 hr El Diablo 13
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 hr Into The Night 54,626
abby 9-4-15 14 hr mrs gladys kravitz 6
Word (Dec '08) 14 hr Red_Forman 5,431
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages