“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#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 Florida’s, 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” isn’t 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.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76591 Nov 30, 2012
Sgt__Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And which I kind of regretted not doing at the time...definitely regretted when I heard about his later actions.
You couldn’t have known that things were going to turn out as they did. If that person had turned their life around, you would have thought it a good thing that you didn’t.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#76592 Nov 30, 2012
I'm sitting here wondering why my head hurts so bad and then I remembered my L ride in this morning.

At Howard, a woman with a kid in a stroller gets on. I can't really see them as I'm sitting way in the back of the car, but I can hear the kid beating on the stroller's tray. Fine, I can handle that kind of noise.

But then she rolls the stroller down the aisle to the end of the car, effectivly blocking me and a couple of other people from getting out of our seats. Fine, she'll have to move when we get to Belmont.

But then the kid proceeds to scream and howl and twist himself all around his stroller and the mom just pulls out her smart phone and totally ignores him. After about 2 minutes of this, the guy in front of me grunts and glares at the mom and moves to a different part of the car, all the while the mom is still playing on her phone and has not said one word to the kid.

The kid continued to cry and wail for the next 20 minutes, sometimes slowing down just long enough for me to think he had worn himself out, but then he'd start up as loud as before. I couldn't decide if he was really really tired because in his few quite moments his eyes were closed, or had some type of autism or cerebral palsy or something like that. His mother was ignoring him so completely that I began to think that it was all drama for his mama. She did finally come over and wipe his nose and tears but never once said anything to him or tried to comfort him in any way.

But I tried real hard not to judge her, I did, really! But there was no way I could have inflicted my kid on an L-ful of other people like that.

I could not WAIT to get off at Belmont, even though I had to practically crawl over the stroller to get out.

“bELieve”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#76593 Nov 30, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm typing on my iPhone and not using many words, so it's coming out wrong.

I wasn't trying to say that I thought making it look like no one was home was illegal. I believe in being prepared. But he wasn't sitting there with a gun and the phone in his hand to call for back up. Even the police, who are trained, call for reinforcements ASAP. That is where I have a problem with his actions. As soon as he determined that there was no immediate threat to his life, he should have called 911.

As for my statement before, when you are surprised in your own home, I will give you a little leeway. When you have everything planned out to the point that you are sitting in the dark at the bottom of the stairs with a gun in your hands, that benefit of the doubt is gone.

“It made sense at the time....”

Since: May 09

Schaumburg, IL

#76594 Nov 30, 2012
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I'm not dealing with it actually. I sicced (is that a word?) on my nephew. I'm too busy to live her life for her and she's almost (in March) 45 goddamn years old. Enough. I am not her mother.
It's the timing that i thoguht was coincidental, i get that you're not taking her in or dealing directly with her POS... your story and the article both further illustrate taht "it takes a village" wehn dealing with domestic violence.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#76595 Nov 30, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I think it's pretty obvious she wasn't going for the legal-dictionary definition of "entrapment". So, how bout hunting?

This guy is no different from the hunter sitting in his tree stand, waiting for deer to walk by. His premeditation is that he wants to kill. No particular buck or doe- just whatever comes along.

This guy was in it to kill. He killed kids in the same way a hunter kills animals- laying in wait for them.

Rationalize it all you want and extrapolate with anecdotes of what others who got away with burglary might have gone on to do. He murdered those kids.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76596 Nov 30, 2012
Squishy: I can tolerate a kid's crying and fussing so much more if the parents at least make an effort to get it to stop. If the parents do nothing, I'm livid.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#76597 Nov 30, 2012

“bELieve”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#76598 Nov 30, 2012
squishymama wrote:
I'm sitting here wondering why my head hurts so bad and then I remembered my L ride in this morning.

At Howard, a woman with a kid in a stroller gets on. I can't really see them as I'm sitting way in the back of the car, but I can hear the kid beating on the stroller's tray. Fine, I can handle that kind of noise.

But then she rolls the stroller down the aisle to the end of the car, effectivly blocking me and a couple of other people from getting out of our seats. Fine, she'll have to move when we get to Belmont.

But then the kid proceeds to scream and howl and twist himself all around his stroller and the mom just pulls out her smart phone and totally ignores him. After about 2 minutes of this, the guy in front of me grunts and glares at the mom and moves to a different part of the car, all the while the mom is still playing on her phone and has not said one word to the kid.

The kid continued to cry and wail for the next 20 minutes, sometimes slowing down just long enough for me to think he had worn himself out, but then he'd start up as loud as before. I couldn't decide if he was really really tired because in his few quite moments his eyes were closed, or had some type of autism or cerebral palsy or something like that. His mother was ignoring him so completely that I began to think that it was all drama for his mama. She did finally come over and wipe his nose and tears but never once said anything to him or tried to comfort him in any way.

But I tried real hard not to judge her, I did, really! But there was no way I could have inflicted my kid on an L-ful of other people like that.

I could not WAIT to get off at Belmont, even though I had to practically crawl over the stroller to get out.
I hope your head feels better soon!

It must have been REALLY hard not to say anything.

One of my college roommates posted on FB asking if anyone knew a way to prevent her preschooler from accessing things on the iPad other than his apps (he apparently has skyped a few people lately and bought some things on amazon using the one-click option). I made one app suggestion (Zoodles), but 2 people jumped in later on with "maybe you just shouldn't let him play with it" and. "He is too young for a $600 piece of technology". Ugh, she doesn't need her friends judging her. She also has 1 year old twins to deal with right now.

I wish moms were more supportive of each other, in general.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76599 Nov 30, 2012
Jess in NJ wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm typing on my iPhone and not using many words, so it's coming out wrong.
I wasn't trying to say that I thought making it look like no one was home was illegal. I believe in being prepared. But he wasn't sitting there with a gun and the phone in his hand to call for back up. Even the police, who are trained, call for reinforcements ASAP. That is where I have a problem with his actions. As soon as he determined that there was no immediate threat to his life, he should have called 911.
If I had a gun and an intruder broke into my home, the last thing I would be thinking about is calling the police at that moment. I don’t even own any guns and the last thing I would be thinking about is calling the police if an intruder broke in. The first thing I would do is get a knife or any weapon or just use my hands to eliminate the threat. When an intruder is in your house and the police are ten minutes away, in my mind, they may as well be in Timbuktu?
Jess in NJ wrote:
<quoted text>When you have everything planned out to the point that you are sitting in the dark at the bottom of the stairs with a gun in your hands, that benefit of the doubt is gone.
Why, what if these people who break in are armed? How was this man supposed to know that they weren’t? Seems to me that’s just being prepared and being smart. Should he just turn out the lights and go to bed and risk waking up to intruders pointing a gun to his head?

An intruder is like a like a mystery box. You don’t know what kind of intruder you are going to get. That’s why many states, like NC provide a legal presumption that you have a reasonable fear for your safety. It’s common sense that you shouldn’t have to take a chance and wait for someone who has broken into your home to threaten you first.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#76600 Nov 30, 2012
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text> His premeditation is that he wants to kill. No particular buck or doe- just whatever comes along.
This guy was in it to kill. He killed kids in the same way a hunter kills animals- laying in wait for them.
IN many states, you have the legal right to kill any buck or doe that breaks into your home. Many states realize that it's foolish, when someone has already taken the criminal act of breaking and entering for you to sit around and pray that it's some unarmed 100 lbs 16 year old girl, before you defend yourself.

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 38 min wojar 182,029
Santa Claus delayed in Chicago after getting th... 2 hr ChicagOpinion 1
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 hr johnplustwomore 1,155,536
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 hr J RULES 71,188
Chicago Pizza Blows 9 hr joey 2
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 9 hr KiMare 51,279
AP Exclusive: Union members appointed after $10... (Mar '08) 10 hr IUEC 7,564
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:49 am PST

NBC Sports11:49AM
Reggie Wayne needs offseason triceps surgery
NBC Sports 1:29 PM
Colts say they will be all business despite nothing to gain - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:40 PM
Cutler realizes Bears could be in for changes - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 8:22 PM
Bears re-sign Austen Lane to replace Willie Young
Bleacher Report10:09 PM
Bears vs. Vikings: Breaking Down Minnesota's Game Plan