“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#81928 Mar 7, 2013
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
In this week's "No punishment too severe" category, a woman sold her baby daughter to a man so he could use her in child porn.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/brea...
Not gonna read it, no way, no how.

And you can't make me!

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81929 Mar 7, 2013
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Even younger! Ya, I went in for the first sentence and I knew I could not read that story.
It got even worse, so I"m glad you did not read it all.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#81930 Mar 7, 2013
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
Today's absurdity:
One of the cardinal electors for the next Pope said ties to anyone guilty of sexual misconduct whether intended or unintended COULD put a man's candidacy IN QUESTION IF it could distract from his spiritual mission.
WTF? Could? In question?? If???
Shouldn't it be a little more definite than that? Especially in light of the Catholic church's history in that regard? Ya' know, since we're talking about who's going to be the friggin' Pope? I mean, he's only the leader of the Catholic church and one of the 3 or 4 most important religious figures in the world. I'm not a believer, so it doesn't really matter to me, but I would think that if the highest standards should ever apply, this would be one of those times.
I'm not seeing a problem with this statement at all.

Define ties. If someone who works in my office is one day arrested for sexual misconduct, I have ties to that person, but that person's misconduct is not a reflection on me in any way.

So if some priest commits a sexual misdeed, and a candidate for pope wentto seminary school with him, or served in the same parish with him at one time, you're saying it should without question put his candidacy in question? because he has ties to the pedo priest?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81931 Mar 7, 2013
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
Not gonna read it, no way, no how.
And you can't make me!
Don't. It's worse than the headline implies.

“FD&S is no way to be.”

Since: Feb 13

Knoxville, TN

#81932 Mar 7, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not seeing a problem with this statement at all.
Define ties. If someone who works in my office is one day arrested for sexual misconduct, I have ties to that person, but that person's misconduct is not a reflection on me in any way.
So if some priest commits a sexual misdeed, and a candidate for pope wentto seminary school with him, or served in the same parish with him at one time, you're saying it should without question put his candidacy in question? because he has ties to the pedo priest?
Then you and I simply differ on this topic.(Knock me over with a feather!) The new Pope, coming in on the heels of a regime rife with questions/doubts/suspicions/cr iticisms relative to the handling of incidents and allegations sexual molestation, should (IMO) have immaculately clean hands. Your comparision to one of your co-workers being a perv is misguided at best. You really want to compare your situation/obligations to the Pope's? If the Pope-elect worked in a parish/church/whatever with someone accused/convicted of misconduct, there will be (right or wrong) questions about what the Pope-elect knew, didn't know, did, should have did, etc. That is not something the new Pope and the Catholic church, in the current climate, can afford to have hanging over their heads. I think it would be unwise at best.
Timmy

United States

#81933 Mar 7, 2013
Here are a few other things I remember from the news stories from when it took place.

The homeowner had one of those door chains that only allow it to be opened a few inches unless you unlatch it. He opened the door a few inches, with the chain on, gun in hand and tried to look out to see who was banging on his door. The officer fired through the door mulitple times killing him. The officer never identified himself or ordered him to drop the gun.
RACE wrote:
Your right, its a good thing.
I have a few questions about how it played out though. If he did have his gun leveled in the firing position then I can see that maybe a cop would draw and fire without directing him to put the weapon down. But if he had it at his side, then he should have given the person an order to drop the weapon, but again, if the cop is hiding you dont know who is telling you to drop the weapon.
Personally, If I could not identify them as cops, I would not have even opened the door, and called 911.
<quoted text>

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#81934 Mar 7, 2013
RACE wrote:
Your right, its a good thing.
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
Same her e-- don't open the door
I COMPLETELY disagree!

I thought it was a law that police officers MUST identify themselves.

What about this scenario: police chase a man who ducks down an alley. My house is right next to the ally. They lose sight of him so ASSUME he must have run into my house. They follow suit, don't identify themselves because they don't want to give themselves a way. I'm sleeping peacefully until I hear someone crashing through my door. I grab my 9 and come investigate. The police see a gun in my hand, don't identify themselves or shout any orders, and instead shoot me dead.

Justifiable or murder?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#81935 Mar 7, 2013
Timmy wrote:
The homeowner had one of those door chains that only allow it to be opened a few inches unless you unlatch it. He opened the door a few inches, with the chain on, gun in hand and tried to look out to see who was banging on his door. The officer fired through the door mulitple times killing him. The officer never identified himself or ordered him to drop the gun.
<quoted text>
This just makes it worse.

The officer should be charged with first degree murder.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#81936 Mar 7, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
Interesting bit on NPR yesterday where they had business analysts examine the issues the Catholic church faces and give them "business" advice. It was pretty interesting, and respectful as well. One conclusion: The CC would be advised to fully 'fess up as to the masterful coverup of moving child predator priests around to different jurisdictions -- only that way could they start to re-earn the trust of Catholics around the world.
It's especially tough when I read about women (poor women, women who'd had abortions, prostitutes, mentally ill people-- but mostly,*poor* women who had no voice) who were essentially kidnapped by the CC in Ireland and then put to work as slave laborers for their entire lives.
The Irish government recently issued an acknowledgement and apology to those women.
I just saw a movie about this a couple weeks ago. Damn I can't remember the name of it. It was a movie not a documentary, but basically these women were imprisoned in a convent, for life. So way wrong.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#81937 Mar 7, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
This just makes it worse.
The officer should be charged with first degree murder.
Unless I'm mistaken, 1st degree = premeditated. This would be manslaughter.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#81938 Mar 7, 2013
I can only see one position where a cop is gonna see a face and weapon at the same moment, and thats where the weapon is right next to the face, I call BS on the whole thing because why would a cop be banging on somebodies door, chasing a perp and not "want to give themselves away" by identifying themselves as cops. Do you really think a guy running from the cops is just gonna open his door minutes after eluding them?
Timmy wrote:
Here are a few other things I remember from the news stories from when it took place.
The homeowner had one of those door chains that only allow it to be opened a few inches unless you unlatch it. He opened the door a few inches, with the chain on, gun in hand and tried to look out to see who was banging on his door. The officer fired through the door mulitple times killing him. The officer never identified himself or ordered him to drop the gun.
<quoted text>

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#81939 Mar 7, 2013
I dont know about what the law states. Unfortunately many innocent home owners are shot by police when they try to defend themselves and the police are busting in the wrong door. I have read a few tragedies where cops killed a homeowner executing a search warrant on the wrong address. Cops are always cleared.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I COMPLETELY disagree!
I thought it was a law that police officers MUST identify themselves.
What about this scenario: police chase a man who ducks down an alley. My house is right next to the ally. They lose sight of him so ASSUME he must have run into my house. They follow suit, don't identify themselves because they don't want to give themselves a way. I'm sleeping peacefully until I hear someone crashing through my door. I grab my 9 and come investigate. The police see a gun in my hand, don't identify themselves or shout any orders, and instead shoot me dead.
Justifiable or murder?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81940 Mar 7, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
This just makes it worse.
The officer should be charged with first degree murder.
Even cutting the officer slack because they ahve tough jobs that require split second decisions, he should be banned from law enforcement for life, at a minimum. he doesn't have what it takes: Restraint.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81941 Mar 7, 2013
RACE wrote:
I dont know about what the law states. Unfortunately many innocent home owners are shot by police when they try to defend themselves and the police are busting in the wrong door. I have read a few tragedies where cops killed a homeowner executing a search warrant on the wrong address. Cops are always cleared.
<quoted text>
We had Mpls cops invade the WRONG HOUSE and killed an innocent homeowner.

Internal investigation cleared them. no charges.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#81942 Mar 7, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>Unless I'm mistaken, 1st degree = premeditated. This would be manslaughter.
Sounds like he had every intention of shooting as soon as the door opened= premeditated. But I'm with Race, this isn't passing the smell test.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#81943 Mar 7, 2013
RACE wrote:
Unfortunately many innocent home owners are shot by police when they try to defend themselves and the police are busting in the wrong door. I have read a few tragedies where cops killed a homeowner executing a search warrant on the wrong address.
This is why every American needs a high-capacity assault weapon next to their beds. Mow all those btches down!

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#81944 Mar 7, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like he had every intention of shooting as soon as the door opened= premeditated. But I'm with Race, this isn't passing the smell test.
That does not pass the legal test of premeditation. He did not wake up that morning with a plan to kill that dude. He had no plans in place to tske him to tha guy's door. That is not premeditated.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#81945 Mar 7, 2013
To play devils advocate....
How much time is the minimum to premeditate pulling a trigger?
No, he did not wake up planning to kill the dude, no he did not think about it last year while on vacation, and no he did not even think about it when he was chasing the guy.....But....
What if he has a bug up his ass, and decided that if he had any provocation AT ALL, he was going to draw and fire, and claim fear for his life. What if the guy never even had a gun and the cop killed him and claimed he thought he saw one, all because he had already made up his mind that if this guy did not come out on hands and knees, he was going to pay?

How much time is premeditated?
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>That does not pass the legal test of premeditation. He did not wake up that morning with a plan to kill that dude. He had no plans in place to tske him to tha guy's door. That is not premeditated.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#81946 Mar 7, 2013
RACE wrote:
How much time is premeditated?
I was about to ask the same thing. Just because he didn't plan on killing someone when he woke up that morning, doesn't mean he didn't plan on killing someone as soon as the chase ensued.

But again, it sounds *suspect* that a police officer would pound on someone's door in the middle of the night without identifying himself, then blow the person away as soon as the door cracked open.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#81947 Mar 7, 2013
RACE wrote:
To play devils advocate....
How much time is the minimum to premeditate pulling a trigger?
No, he did not wake up planning to kill the dude, no he did not think about it last year while on vacation, and no he did not even think about it when he was chasing the guy.....But....
What if he has a bug up his ass, and decided that if he had any provocation AT ALL, he was going to draw and fire, and claim fear for his life. What if the guy never even had a gun and the cop killed him and claimed he thought he saw one, all because he had already made up his mind that if this guy did not come out on hands and knees, he was going to pay?
That's a lot of what if's. Good luck proving this guy had intent to kill no matter what. I'm not getting into what ifs. I'm just discussing the facts as reported.
RACE wrote:
How much time is premeditated?
Now onto a more objective question.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8515194_difference-f...

'Under United States Code Title 18, Chapter 51, Section 1111, murder refers to the criminal act of taking a human's life with malice aforethought. "Aforethought" is the planning of the act, or premeditation'

'Courts generally determine premeditation by examining whether the defendant had time to form intent and a cooling-off period occurred before the defendant committed the act. If there was sufficient time to cool off and rethink the decision to commit murder, premeditation exists.'

Chasing someone down, arriving at house you had no prior plans to be at, and shooting thru the door killing someone you had never seen before does not fit the above definition of premeditation.

Read over Manslaughter. This incident,if he's even charged with a crime, fits better in this box than premeditated murder..

http://www.ehow.com/about_5382704_voluntary-m...

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) 10 min Guru 189,882
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 34 min Lexus1985 425
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 40 min leosnana 1,232,907
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 41 min Lexus1985 407
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr IBdaMann 53,520
News 1 dead, 4 wounded in Chicago shootings 3 hr reality is a crutch 1
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 hr James 51,766
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]