Have the FAKER STAKERS got by with MU...
paul b
#71 Sep 14, 2012
Martyr Machine wrote:
LOL! faker stakers... murder.. in ALL CAPS to give it a feeling of being important, damnit!
lol! b@@ch!!!!:)
Mike Bennett

Marion, OH

#72 Sep 14, 2012
If the "Crook" had paid his bill as promised the Staker's would not have been there in the first place. He comes out of his house with a gun and making threats. He who shoots first lives. Ask "Dirty Harry." Too bad Tyler shot him only 5 times. If he had my .380 he could have shot him 14 times. The "Crooked Bastard" got what he deserved.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#73 Sep 15, 2012
abe lincoln wrote:
Yes, the number of shots does mean something. The victim was obviously fed up with the persistence of the Stakers pounding on the doors and windows. I feel that he introduced gun into the situation as a scare tactic. Yes, it was a bad decision that unfortunately led to his death. I don't think that Staker was in any real danger of being shot. But I wonder, did they go ahead with the repo of the mower after they killed this man? Nepotism is rampant in this town so of course he won't be indited on this.
You're not well educated I see by your spelling and your knowledge of the law. Knocking on the door is legal until told to leave. If the homeowner is too childish to man up and tell them to stop, then they can knock all they want. If you point a firearm at me, I'm allowed to shoot you as many times as I need to stop you. If that's 1, 2, or 10. So get over your ignorance.
Ghostryder

Olive Hill, KY

#74 Sep 16, 2012
Here it is once again you retards.. Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault

First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the

situation. The defendant cannot be the frst aggressor or initiator. Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger

Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and thathis use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear inmind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death.

The key word is “serious.”

In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury canconsider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victimhad, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps

from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal defnition of “serious.” In

court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as hasbeing attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result frombeing struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club. The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger is important. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judgeor jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes and consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, and knowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future

harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly

force.

Condition 3: Duty to Retreat

A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid thedanger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing hisintention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.....**** If condition 1: was applied none of this would have happened.. Do I need to sit you dumbshits down like first graders and explain this to you......The above is out of the Ohio CCW hand book.....ACCORDING TO CONDITION 1:...LIL STAKE SHOULD BE BEHIND BARS...SO OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CAN'T COMPREHEND THAT AND HALF OF YOU DUMBASSES WON'T EITHER....
WOW

Upper Sandusky, OH

#75 Sep 16, 2012
He was also trespassing, u can't use a ccw to commit a crime and then use it to get out of the mess u created can u?
JGB

Apo, AE

#76 Sep 16, 2012
The whole carrying concealed question isn't material to this event. It's either self-defense or it isn't.

“Two stones with one bird”

Since: Oct 09

The Compound

#77 Sep 16, 2012
WOW wrote:
He was also trespassing, u can't use a ccw to commit a crime and then use it to get out of the mess u created can u?
You are right as far as the law is written. However, he was engaging in a repo, which made trespassing okay in that regard. That logic is known as "preemption" in the legal world.
ching

Marion, OH

#78 Sep 16, 2012
Do you know for sure they both had cc license at the time? Is there any proof?
Wow

Upper Sandusky, OH

#79 Sep 16, 2012
Martyr Machine wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right as far as the law is written. However, he was engaging in a repo, which made trespassing okay in that regard. That logic is known as "preemption" in the legal world.
Yes but in a repo if u are asked to leave and u don't u ate trespassing and the way I understand it he was asked to leave and I'm sure u can't just stay there all day and harass someone and use ur business name to do so

“Two stones with one bird”

Since: Oct 09

The Compound

#80 Sep 16, 2012
Wow wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but in a repo if u are asked to leave and u don't u ate trespassing and the way I understand it he was asked to leave and I'm sure u can't just stay there all day and harass someone and use ur business name to do so
It is one of those gray areas I guess. They were there to get their stuff and the guy wanted them to leave. Seems like the guy could have just given back the lawnmower and everything would have been fine.
LMFAO

Marion, OH

#81 Sep 16, 2012
Ghostryder wrote:
Here it is once again you retards.. Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the
situation. The defendant cannot be the frst aggressor or initiator. Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and thathis use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear inmind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death.
The key word is “serious.”
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury canconsider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victimhad, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps
from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal defnition of “serious.” In
court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as hasbeing attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result frombeing struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club. The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger is important. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judgeor jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes and consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, and knowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future
harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly
force.
Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid thedanger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing hisintention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.....**** If condition 1: was applied none of this would have happened.. Do I need to sit you dumbshits down like first graders and explain this to you......The above is out of the Ohio CCW hand book.....ACCORDING TO CONDITION 1:...LIL STAKE SHOULD BE BEHIND BARS...SO OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CAN'T COMPREHEND THAT AND HALF OF YOU DUMBASSES WON'T EITHER....
It all boils down to 4 things. Did he Knowingly, Purposefully, Negligently, Recklessly cause the death.

Well, he didn't know he was gonna kill someone, his purpose wasn't to kill someone (that's insane to go kill over a used $700 mower lol), seems he wasn't reckless and its undoubt not negligent. The dumbass pulled a gun after hiding and dodging a repo of an item he didn't fullfill paying for. What a idiot
chris

Minford, OH

#83 Sep 17, 2012
AllIdoislol wrote:
LOL... The people defending Holsinger can only respond with quotes about knocking on doors & windows... LOL. AND it was only a mower... LOL how about the FACTS??? Holsinger pulled a gun FIRST of which witnesses have given signed deposition ... Get a life folk... No charges are coming!!! LOL
get a life???? really???? god i hope you have kids and someone kills them right in front of you i really do!!! then after they are in the ground ill piss on their head stone for you!:) have a nice day!:)

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#84 Sep 17, 2012
Ghostryder wrote:
Here it is once again you retards.. Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault

First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the

situation. The defendant cannot be the frst aggressor or initiator. Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger

Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and thathis use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear inmind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death.

The key word is “serious.”

In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury canconsider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victimhad, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps

from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal defnition of “serious.” In

court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as hasbeing attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result frombeing struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club. The defendantÂ’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger is important. The defendantÂ’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judgeor jury will envision themselves standing in the defendantÂ’s shoes and consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, and knowledge; the victimÂ’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future

harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly

force.

Condition 3: Duty to Retreat

A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid thedanger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing hisintention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.....**** If condition 1: was applied none of this would have happened.. Do I need to sit you dumbshits down like first graders and explain this to you......The above is out of the Ohio CCW hand book.....ACCORDING TO CONDITION 1:...LIL STAKE SHOULD BE BEHIND BARS...SO OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY CAN'T COMPREHEND THAT AND HALF OF YOU DUMBASSES WON'T EITHER....
Legally knocking on a door to legally repossess an item is in no way initiation of an incident. The victim should've been an adult and told them from inside to leave. Then their knocking would've been considered trespassing. But instead he sat inside like an ignorant child and then came outside angry, pulled a gun, and got what he deserved.

I'm not aware of duty to retreat in Ohio law. But retreat is not feasible with a gun inches from one's face. That's absurd to even consider.
nah

Fairmont, WV

#85 Sep 17, 2012
The harassment went way beyond "knocking on the door"

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#86 Sep 17, 2012
DieselVette wrote:
<quoted text>
Legally knocking on a door to legally repossess an item is in no way initiation of an incident. The victim should've been an adult and told them from inside to leave. Then their knocking would've been considered trespassing. But instead he sat inside like an ignorant child and then came outside angry, pulled a gun, and got what he deserved.
I'm not aware of duty to retreat in Ohio law. But retreat is not feasible with a gun inches from one's face. That's absurd to even consider.
While I completely agree that Mr. Holsinger could have handled the situation differently the thing that I am having trouble with is...

When does "knocking on a door legally" turn to harrassment?
I think of knocking on a door as stepping up to the door and using your hand to rap on it or pressing the door bell, not beating on the windows, doors, airconditioning unit, ect.
I think we all know why the Stakers did not call the Sheriff to help with the reposession as it has been said by the Sheriff himself that had they been called the proper procedure would have been for the Sherrif to ask for the property and upon that being denied the reposessor would be told to go get a court order. Surely the Stakers knew this but I highly doubt if Mr. Holsinger did.
We all know what Mr. Holsinger should have done. He should have paid his debt and if that wasn't possible he should have returned the property.
My question is...
Where is the line between legally trying to reposess property and sheer harrassment?
I don't think this is cut and dry "self defence". I think there is a level of responsibility to the Stakers for not handling the situation in a professional manner in the first place.
JGB

Apo, AE

#87 Sep 17, 2012
In,

There is not a "harrassment" law in Ohio. Trespassing can come into play after a person passes a certain point. Disorderly conduct might apply but it's a stretch and has to be witnessed by the officer. Neither charge empowers a person to use deadly force. Not taking sides here, just stating facts.
hmm

Baird, TX

#88 Sep 17, 2012
2 cents wrote:
I really don't think you can get someone for murder when eyewitnesses back up the shooter's story of a gun being pointed at his face. because of that, I don't think he will be charged with murder.
However, this will be two separate cases, with a hefty civil wrongful death suit, or something similar. I think the victim's family will win in civil court (or an insurance company will settle). either way, the widow will be a very wealthy lady when it's all said and done!
bottom line: shooter will not be charged with murder.... but his dad better have plenty of business liability insurance!
Im sure a civil suit will be filed but not because his wife is just sooo upset but because she cant stand the thought of having to get a job to support herself. If she were grieving for her husband then she probably wouldnt be going on dates with strange men that she meets on internet dating sites! Once again she is looking for someone else to support her sorry ass. If anything there should be a fund set aside for the children to go to college so that they wont end up like her. They are the only ones anyone should feel sorry for.
hmm

Baird, TX

#89 Sep 17, 2012
veronicaisajoke wrote:
What about child endangerment??? That cant be ignored but it is apparently. what no regard for the childrens safety??? The Stakers knew there was kids at home but still enforced their actikns with gun fire with children present.
If child endangerment charges were to be brought on anyone it should be the mother of the children, it was her stupidity to let this go on in front of the children. The law should have been called by her when it all started but instead she let her husband go out waiving a gun around all because they didnt want to pay for or return something that wasnt thiers.
nah

Marietta, OH

#90 Sep 17, 2012
hmm wrote:
<quoted text> If child endangerment charges were to be brought on anyone it should be the mother of the children, it was her stupidity to let this go on in front of the children. The law should have been called by her when it all started but instead she let her husband go out waiving a gun around all because they didnt want to pay for or return something that wasnt thiers.
You sir are living proof that Anything can be explained away through the power of rationalization. Criminals use it all the time to justify their actions. Ask any criminal justice graduate.
omg

Sharpsburg, KY

#91 Sep 17, 2012
hmm wrote:
<quoted text>If child endangerment charges were to be brought on anyone it should be the mother of the children, it was her stupidity to let this go on in front of the children. The law should have been called by her when it all started but instead she let her husband go out waiving a gun around all because they didnt want to pay for or return something that wasnt thiers.
This has to be the most ignorant post I have ever seen, and I don't know any of these people.

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.

Portsmouth Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Heathen Kindred Seeks new members 1 hr Heathen Pride 8
City hasnt painting curbs or streets in years 1 hr Robert 10
Hijacking Portsmouth 1 hr Robert 10
Bartenders 8 hr Pipe dream 12
Any single Milfs/cougars in the area who wanna ... (Aug '13) 9 hr Twig and berries 19
east end hookers 10 hr agent 6
Lee Scott 12 hr Jimmy 8

Portsmouth Jobs

Personal Finance

Portsmouth Mortgages