Comments
75,581 - 75,600 of 97,562 Comments Last updated 7 hrs ago

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76578
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76579
Nov 30, 2012
 

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76580
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76581
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76582
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76584
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

“Licensed to Ill”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76585
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

“Licensed to Ill”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76586
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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.

“Licensed to Ill”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76587
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Licensed to Ill”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Licensed to Ill”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76593
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“WE WON TOPIX! YAY!”

Since: Jun 09

Hoffman Estates, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76595
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76597
Nov 30, 2012
 

“bELieve”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

81 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Patrick 1,082,252
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 7 min OnlyPatchWork 68,049
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 min ritedownthemiddle 45,836
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 22 min wojar 174,933
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 473
Amy 7-28 1 hr Sublime1 16
get your prescribed drugs here from our Dr 2 hr Dr beckyhills 1
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 2:52PM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••