Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Family of burglar shot by homeowner upset

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Family of burglar shot by homeowner upset

    According to them, "How is he suppose to get money for school?"



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZGSQXmJPaQ
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

  • #2
    About the burglar from the video: "He had his whole life ahead of him..." In prison.

    His family needs to be slapped. Hard.

    Comment


    • #3
      If you are a victim of a society and you have been taught all your life that you are due reparation but what you have received is woefully inadequate in proportion to the abominations you and especially your ancestors have been subjected to taking by force what you are due is wholly justified.

      I was watching a video of what looked like street thugs being interviewed on how they felt about Trump. They basically laughed and said he was a threat to free stuff. It would be a mistake to think that just because someone doesn't have an ivy league education that they are stupid. It would also be a mistake to suggest that it is a simple matter to escape dependency on the welfare state. If for several generations your lifestyle has evolved to be incompatible with a working class ethic you can't simply wake up one day and join what amounts to an alien culture.

      Compound that with eight years of an administration that suggested that the rest of society had unearned privilege you don't share and it is little wonder that you would accept no responsibility for that social order that is fundamentally immoral.

      The people that promote identity politics in the media, academia, and politics but do not suffer the consequences in their personal lives are the real villains. When president Johnson said that we would have those people voting democrat for a hundred years he obviously wasn't concerned about "those people". Perhaps he would have been more judicious if he could have foreseen how far left his party would drift.

      You can't have a successful revolution without destroying the existing social order. What may sound insane or stupid to someone entrenched in the traditional social order sounds like common sense to those who are not.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Nice shot! One round and another lowlife gets to go even lower....6ft lower.

        Paul
        ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
        All human ills he can subdue,
        Or with a bauble or medal
        Can win mans heart for you;
        And many a blessing know to stew
        To make a megloamaniac bright;
        Give honour to the dainty Corse,
        The Pixie is a little shite.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          About the burglar from the video: "He had his whole life ahead of him..." In prison.

          His family needs to be slapped. Hard.
          VERY HARD!

          Question on the legal side. The report says he was climbing out or leaving the home. Was there still a threat to the home owner?
          Last edited by Half Pint John; 07 Apr 18, 04:14.
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #6
            The burglars family imply that they have a right to steal and that being a thief is a legitimate occupation. I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the family were also involved in crime.
            At least there is one less predator out there.
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • #7
              The Federal Government has a student loan program. He did not have to burgle. I assume he finished High School?

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                I bet it was him who burgled that house the first time round.
                ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                All human ills he can subdue,
                Or with a bauble or medal
                Can win mans heart for you;
                And many a blessing know to stew
                To make a megloamaniac bright;
                Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                The Pixie is a little shite.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                  VERY HARD!

                  Question on the legal side. The report says he was climbing out or leaving the home. Was there still a threat to the home owner?


                  If he was actually in the process of simply trying to escape, then the claim of self defense becomes pretty weak.
                  A valid claim of self defense requires that the shooter “reasonably” believe that he was facing imminent harm. A home invader who is running away doesn’t meet that requirement.

                  Whether the burglar was actually trying to leave at the time of the shooting or that the shooter would reasonably be expected to know he was leaving are things I cannot comment on as I haven’t seen the report and don’t know all the facts. At this stage, it would only be significant if the shooter was the one who said the burglar was trying to leave at the time of the incident. Everyone else is just rendering their personal conclusion.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                    If he was actually in the process of simply trying to escape, then the claim of self defense becomes pretty weak.
                    A valid claim of self defense requires that the shooter “reasonably” believe that he was facing imminent harm. A home invader who is running away doesn’t meet that requirement.

                    Whether the burglar was actually trying to leave at the time of the shooting or that the shooter would reasonably be expected to know he was leaving are things I cannot comment on as I haven’t seen the report and don’t know all the facts. At this stage, it would only be significant if the shooter was the one who said the burglar was trying to leave at the time of the incident. Everyone else is just rendering their personal conclusion.
                    No tears for the burglar and less for his family.
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                      If he was actually in the process of simply trying to escape, then the claim of self defense becomes pretty weak.
                      A valid claim of self defense requires that the shooter “reasonably” believe that he was facing imminent harm. A home invader who is running away doesn’t meet that requirement.

                      Whether the burglar was actually trying to leave at the time of the shooting or that the shooter would reasonably be expected to know he was leaving are things I cannot comment on as I haven’t seen the report and don’t know all the facts. At this stage, it would only be significant if the shooter was the one who said the burglar was trying to leave at the time of the incident. Everyone else is just rendering their personal conclusion.
                      They key in all use of force cases is the user's belief at the time of the use of force. If the woman states that she believed that the man exiting her home, which he had entered unlawfully, was about to inflict harm upon her when she fired, then there is decent grounds for self defense. Like most states Florida does not require a person to retreat from an attack.

                      The family's reaction will certainly lend credence to the shooter's actions, as they expressed no surprise at the accusation of burglary, or the concept of his criminal behavior.

                      Florida, like Texas and most other states, has legal ground for preventing the consequences of theft, the legal basis for security guards and store employees to detail shoplifters, for example. If the woman says she was trying to apprehend a criminal she observed illegally exiting from her home, and he came at her n a manner which placed her in fear for her life (she being a woman of 54), then we are again on legal ground.

                      Given that the deceased was engaged in a crime, most likely a felony, at the time of the incident, the belief that he was willing to commit further crimes, such as assault, sexual assault, and/or murder is not a large leap to make.

                      However, the facts are not fully available to us.

                      Either way, one burglar's career is over.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                        VERY HARD!

                        Question on the legal side. The report says he was climbing out or leaving the home. Was there still a threat to the home owner?
                        The home owner could argue that he was climbing in...

                        In Arizona, (and Florida is close to this standard) the state has to prove it wasn't self-defense, or otherwise necessary beyond reasonable doubt. The homeowner doesn't have to justify their shooting an intruder.
                        That's tough for the state to do, particularly with a jury involved. So, the usual is the state just drops the case since most prosecutors and police are more than on the homeowner's side anyway.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          If he was actually in the process of simply trying to escape, then the claim of self defense becomes pretty weak.
                          A valid claim of self defense requires that the shooter “reasonably” believe that he was facing imminent harm. A home invader who is running away doesn’t meet that requirement.

                          Whether the burglar was actually trying to leave at the time of the shooting or that the shooter would reasonably be expected to know he was leaving are things I cannot comment on as I haven’t seen the report and don’t know all the facts. At this stage, it would only be significant if the shooter was the one who said the burglar was trying to leave at the time of the incident. Everyone else is just rendering their personal conclusion.
                          If I run into a guy half-in and half-out of my window, I am free to assume he is coming in and represents an immediate threat.

                          He broke the law - he got his just deserts. Society is not free buffet for the animals.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            If you are a victim of a society and you have been taught all your life that you are due reparation but what you have received is woefully inadequate in proportion to the abominations you and especially your ancestors have been subjected to taking by force what you are due is wholly justified.

                            I was watching a video of what looked like street thugs being interviewed on how they felt about Trump. They basically laughed and said he was a threat to free stuff. It would be a mistake to think that just because someone doesn't have an ivy league education that they are stupid. It would also be a mistake to suggest that it is a simple matter to escape dependency on the welfare state. If for several generations your lifestyle has evolved to be incompatible with a working class ethic you can't simply wake up one day and join what amounts to an alien culture.

                            Compound that with eight years of an administration that suggested that the rest of society had unearned privilege you don't share and it is little wonder that you would accept no responsibility for that social order that is fundamentally immoral.

                            The people that promote identity politics in the media, academia, and politics but do not suffer the consequences in their personal lives are the real villains. When president Johnson said that we would have those people voting democrat for a hundred years he obviously wasn't concerned about "those people". Perhaps he would have been more judicious if he could have foreseen how far left his party would drift.

                            You can't have a successful revolution without destroying the existing social order. What may sound insane or stupid to someone entrenched in the traditional social order sounds like common sense to those who are not.
                            I think I get your point,and it may explain attitudes,however, even "in Da hood" you don't take somebody elses "stuff"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                              If he was actually in the process of simply trying to escape, then the claim of self defense becomes pretty weak.
                              A valid claim of self defense requires that the shooter “reasonably” believe that he was facing imminent harm. A home invader who is running away doesn’t meet that requirement.

                              Whether the burglar was actually trying to leave at the time of the shooting or that the shooter would reasonably be expected to know he was leaving are things I cannot comment on as I haven’t seen the report and don’t know all the facts. At this stage, it would only be significant if the shooter was the one who said the burglar was trying to leave at the time of the incident. Everyone else is just rendering their personal conclusion.
                              She did state to police there was a "confrontation" upon her catching him exiting her house. This could be that he threatened her with her life at that time.her statement should hold up .she is the only witness.....

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X