Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76570 Nov 30, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
And chemical addictions can drive people to do very stupid stuff.
Oh well. Do all the stupid stuff you wanna do outside of other people's homes. If you don't give a f' about breaking into someone's home, I don't give a f' if you die.

I value law abiding citizens right to be completely secure in their home more than I value the life of low life scum. You on the other hand value the lives of low life scum more than you value the right of law abiding citizens to be completely secure in their home. That's f'd up. You're playing for the wrong team.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76571 Nov 30, 2012
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
That's my plan. I mean she's my (only) sister so it does affect me. Really, days later and I'm still stressing over it, but I am not, not not going to let her come here and move in on me. I am not going to allow her to know my address because no matter how much she promises she WILL give it to that POS if she feels a need in the moment. She'll have him (oh and his POS family) sneaking into my house while I'm asleep. No fucking way.
It would also be one thing if she were taking positive steps in her life to make it better. From what you describe, I don't see that. It sounds like instead she wants you to take these positive steps for her, while she continues on as she has. That's the very definition of a mooch.

“bELieve”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#76572 Nov 30, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>I never said everyone who f*cks up in life is low life scum.

Folks breaking and entering into people’s houses are low life scum. And if you do that, and you die, regardless of the circumstances, I really don’t give a flying f’ what happens to you while you are in that house. I think home owners should be completely secure in their home and be able to COMPLETELY eliminate any threat that a home invader could even potentially pose. As far as I’m concerned, until you’re dead or the cops arrive and secure the place, you still pose a potential threat.

If you are in that situation and you want to think well, gee, maybe if I don’t kill this person who broke into my home they might reform themselves down the road … so therefore I will take a chance and not kill them and HOPE that they don’t kill me, you can do that. I fail to see why others should be required to do so, however.
People have a right to protect themselves and their property. I don't categorize that guy's actions as protecting his property, though. That was entrapment and premeditated murder.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#76573 Nov 30, 2012
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Mimi! Wow. I feel for her kids but I wouldn't give her a dime. Glad you didn't. If she moves in with you -- she'd never leave and you'd have to evict her to get her out. Glad she doesn't have your address. If she starts any crap and ends up on your doorstep, tell her to leave and if need be get a trespass thing on her.
They are like cockroaches. Let them in and they never leave. I've seen them do it to other people.

I was already thinking about restraining orders last night. Mostly for her POS husband, but if necessary...<shrug>

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#76574 Nov 30, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It would also be one thing if she were taking positive steps in her life to make it better. From what you describe, I don't see that. It sounds like instead she wants you to take these positive steps for her, while she continues on as she has. That's the very definition of a mooch.
Exactly! If she were to actually DO anything, I would help her anyway I could (not living in my house though) but I gave up trying to help her several years back.

It was just one last (for me final) case of "I want to do 'x'..." and me trying to help her get it together but her not only not doing anything to help her own situation, but backpedaling and making all the work I'd done a colossal waste of my time.

Fortunately it wasn't my first rodeo with her so I hadn't done the amount of work I otherwise would have...just in case, but still. That was the last time I tried to help her...it was at her request, and I got burned (again)...never again.

I certainly am not going to knock myself out trying to find her an apartment especially considering the fact that she has NO JOB and NO MONEY. I mean, get real. I will give her the number of a shelter though, although even that's more work than I want to do at this point.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76575 Nov 30, 2012
Jess in NJ wrote:
<quoted text>
People have a right to protect themselves and their property. I don't categorize that guy's actions as protecting his property, though. That was entrapment and premeditated murder.
This is not about property. It's about entering someone's home. Someone can steal my shyte outside of my home and I'd say they don't deserve to die, but when they come in my home, that's a different matter.

It's also not entrapment:

"In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

All he did was make it appear to be a favorable opportunity. So it's not entrapment.

He's also not even being charged with per-meditated murder.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76576 Nov 30, 2012
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly! If she were to actually DO anything, I would help her anyway I could (not living in my house though) but I gave up trying to help her several years back.
It was just one last (for me final) case of "I want to do 'x'..." and me trying to help her get it together but her not only not doing anything to help her own situation, but backpedaling and making all the work I'd done a colossal waste of my time.
Fortunately it wasn't my first rodeo with her so I hadn't done the amount of work I otherwise would have...just in case, but still. That was the last time I tried to help her...it was at her request, and I got burned (again)...never again.
I certainly am not going to knock myself out trying to find her an apartment especially considering the fact that she has NO JOB and NO MONEY. I mean, get real. I will give her the number of a shelter though, although even that's more work than I want to do at this point.
I think that's a good approach.

“Fort Kickass”

Since: Sep 09

Bloomington, IL

#76577 Nov 30, 2012
Scary, Mimi. I agree that you're doing the right thing. Keep us posted.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76578 Nov 30, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh well. Do all the stupid stuff you wanna do outside of other people's homes. If you don't give a f' about breaking into someone's home, I don't give a f' if you die.
I value law abiding citizens right to be completely secure in their home more than I value the life of low life scum. You on the other hand value the lives of low life scum more than you value the right of law abiding citizens to be completely secure in their home. That's f'd up. You're playing for the wrong team.
As usual, you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76579 Nov 30, 2012

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#76580 Nov 30, 2012
Entrapment? Thats crazy talk! The homeowner is under no obligation to make his home appear either occupied or unoccupied.

Calling that entrapment, is the same as saying the guy asked for it when he was robbed earlier.

So its the victims fault he was robbed the first time?
Jess in NJ wrote:
<quoted text>
People have a right to protect themselves and their property. I don't categorize that guy's actions as protecting his property, though. That was entrapment and premeditated murder.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76581 Nov 30, 2012
L1: You're a cowardly racist who enjoys banging a hot asian wife but doesn't want to be bothered with children who actually look asian. I think you're scum. Don't procreate. Divorce your wife so she can find a real man to marry, instead of settling with your piece of crap ass.

“bELieve”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#76582 Nov 30, 2012
RACE wrote:
<quoted text>Entrapment? Thats crazy talk! The homeowner is under no obligation to make his home appear either occupied or unoccupied.

Calling that entrapment, is the same as saying the guy asked for it when he was robbed earlier.

So its the victims fault he was robbed the first time?
I realize that is not the legally correct term. I would have no problem with the police setting up a similar sting to catch the criminals in the act. I'm not saying they were innocent or didn't deserve to be punished for breaking and entering. If the homeowner was surprised and threatened by intruders, then he is absolutely within his rights to incapacitate them.

We have laws against vigilantism, though. He set a trap with every intention of killing someone. You must show that you are acting in good faith to protect yourself and your property - lying in wait for them, dragging their bodies and shooting again, waiting a day to call the police - that is not self defense.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76583 Nov 30, 2012
I think Jess just made an easy mistake. Like when someone cries "censorship" when it's a private business involved rather than government.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#76584 Nov 30, 2012
Sub,
Breaking and entering is a far cry from home invasion.
I know damn well you would not trade places with that guy. And I also know for a fact that you would not have done what he did under similar circumstances.
The man's a menace to society and he will get his just rewards.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76585 Nov 30, 2012
Jess in NJ wrote:
<quoted text>
We have laws against vigilantism, though. He set a trap with every intention of killing someone. You must show that you are acting in good faith to protect yourself and your property - lying in wait for them, dragging their bodies and shooting again, waiting a day to call the police - that is not self defense.
Actually, legally, you are wrong. It's not against the law to make it look like you aren't home and wait for intruders to break into your home and then kill them when they enter.

He's only going to get in trouble, if at all because once they were incapacitated, he didn't face a reasonable threat and legally couldn't use deadly force to kill them.

So, legally you, Toj, and Sam have no leg to stand on when you keep whining about how he made it look like he wasn't home and waited for them to enter. Perfectly legal.

In fact, that's no different than what Sgt Smith did, except she unfortunately didn't blow his head off, which legally she could have, the second he entered her home.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76586 Nov 30, 2012
loose cannon wrote:
Sub,
Breaking and entering is a far cry from home invasion.
I know damn well you would not trade places with that guy. And I also know for a fact that you would not have done what he did under similar circumstances.
The man's a menace to society and he will get his just rewards.
I would not trade places with that guy, because I would not be stupid enough to kill them in the manner he did. However, I would kill them, and I would sleep quite well at night, knowing that I made the world a safer place.

When someone enters your home, as far as I know, in every state (don't' quote me on that), legally it is your right to presume they intend to harm you. It doesn't matter if they are teenage girls or big burly men. Heck, even teenage girls can fire a gun.

It's called the "castle doctrine." Legally, unlike many folks on here advocate, you don't have to be a fool and ask questions or hope for the best and hope that they are only there to take your stuff and not harm you. Heck, I've seen stories where two teenagers in love kidnapped an old couple (the girl used to be a neighbor of theirs), made them take a bunch of money out of their bank account and then murdered them. So, that they were teenagers is completely irrelevant to me. Many teenagers kill folks.

If I were that guy, they would have been dead before they made it down the stairs. I woulda pumped the first punk full of so much lead he'd look like swiss cheese. The second the second person came down the stairs they would have joined him. Then I would have called the police.

If he had done that, instead of killing them when they were already incapacitated (that is the only thing he did wrong, legally ... because even under the castle doctrine, if you know someone isn't a reasonable threat you can't kill them), he has no problems and he's a hero to almost everyone except the most bleeding of hearts, like those on here.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76587 Nov 30, 2012
Jess in NJ wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that is not the legally correct term. I would have no problem with the police setting up a similar sting to catch the criminals in the act. I'm not saying they were innocent or didn't deserve to be punished for breaking and entering. If the homeowner was surprised and threatened by intruders, then he is absolutely within his rights to incapacitate them.
When someone breaks into you home, you don't have to be surprised and you don't have to be a fool and wait for them to threaten you.

Sounds to me like you advocate a hope for the best approach or you feel it's wrong.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#76589 Nov 30, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, that's no different than what Sgt Smith did, except she unfortunately didn't blow his head off, which legally she could have, the second he entered her home.
And which I kind of regretted not doing at the time...definitely regretted when I heard about his later actions.

And yes, Red, you are right about emptying the weapon. Had I fired once, I would have continued. I wasn't neccessarily saying that I would have taken him out with one shot (although it's very possible), just that I wouldn't have walked across the room to finish him off.

I think there are two very separate issues here. Yes, he was completely wrong in his follow-up after initially shooting them. I don't think anyone here is arguing about that. However, we are never going to all agree on whether he should have waited for a break-in, and then shot them in the first place. Obviously, I agree with that part of what he did. And while the rest of it disturbs me, I have some compassion for the guy as well. Adrenaline going crazy can affect people in weird ways. Since I didn't shoot the maggot, I cannot honestly say what I would have done if I had and only wounded him. I can say what I think I would do, or what I hope I would do, but that's it.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76590 Nov 30, 2012
I stand corrected. Castle doctrine laws can be different in each state. So, check your laws folks before capping someone in your house, lol.

NC used to require one to retreat if one could. It no longer does.

NC has a very strong one now, and it also applies when you are in your vehicle or your place of work.

The NC "Castle Doctrine comprises three parts: The first establishes legal presumption that if somebody unlawfully and forcefully enters your home, workplace or vehicle, you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm and may use up to deadly force in self-defense. You may not, as some suggest, shoot door-to-door salesmen; invasive entries must be both unlawful and forceful."

"Second, anywhere you may lawfully be, if you face reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force. Media misstatements notwithstanding, this provision, like Floridas, does not change centuries-old standards for deadly force. It merely reinforces existing doctrine that you need not risk attempting escape before responding. Despite some editorialists claims, saying I was afraid isnt enough: In jurisprudence, objective reasonable person standards are well established."

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/01/3...

**********

Even under that law, I suspect it would still be unlawful to kill someone once they are incapacitated.

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) 25 min Dr Guru 194,661
News Lollapalooza day two marked by angst, apathy-an... 41 min RappersRTHUGS 3
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr shinningelectr0n 1,264,193
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr budd 54,342
Please SUBSCRIBE to my YOUTUBE channel for awes... 9 hr The Cloud 1
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 14 hr No8isClassic 8
Can't these people do better? 14 hr Magonigol 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages