RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student

RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 7:20:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle he's going to get off scot free for the rest of his life. Far from it, I warrant, no matter the legal disposition of the case. I think you deny his humanity too cavalierly. I'm sure he was as blindsided as anyone when he discovered that the expected miscreant was a clean-cut exchange student. We always see things that we could have, and perhaps "should" have, done differently when an outcome is tragic. But if the intruder was discovered to have been armed with a long record, then we'd be glad we were smart enough not to have taken any chances. That's just the way it is. And you're right, there's nothing fair about it. You REALLY like playing the 'What If' games on these debates when your LOSING or ALREADY LOST the argument. That it some how justifies the even more silly positions you take. Lets not mix fantasy into the reality of this thread. Otherwise, I'll do the same with a crap load more 'What Ifs'. And I have plenty more imagination then you can muster.... The guy was out of control with a shotgun, that's a fact.

Kirata -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 7:24:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The problem is, there's no way to know and great potential risk attached to finding out. Maybe he means you harm, maybe he doesn't, and maybe he will if you interfere with his interest in obtaining your valuables. How are you supposed to know? And at what risk are you supposed to find out? Castle doctrine grants a homeowner the right to assume that anyone sneaking into his house in the middle of the night is not there for friendly purposes. This is a reasonable supposition. If the intruder's unknown purpose did not involve the homeowner in some way, why would he pick a time when the owner was at home to enter the dwelling in the first place? That's a Darwin Award right there. So you would advocate... It's very sporting of you to illustrate the accuracy my previous observation twice in a row and so promptly. You have a nice day now, and thanks. K.

egern -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 7:26:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Teenagers call it garage hopping. The goal was to sneak into an open garage, steal some beer or other items and slip away into the night. It was dumb and clearly illegal. It was not supposed to be deadly. Inside the house, motion sensors alerted Markus Kaarma, 29, to an intruder’s presence..... ....he grabbed a shotgun from the dining room and rushed outside...... ....He aimed into the garage and, according to court documents, fired four blasts into the dark..... Mr. Dede’s (a 17-year-old exchange student from Germany named Diren Dede ) body crumpled to the floor. --------- I can only shake my head in dismay...... "The new law eliminates that language and makes it clear that residents can use force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an assault on themselves or someone else in the home." According to that law, he is guilty of at least manslaughter, since his own life or that of others was not threatened.

Kirata -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 7:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether You REALLY like playing the 'What If' games on these debates when your LOSING or ALREADY LOST the argument. That it some how justifies the even more silly positions you take. Lets not mix fantasy into the reality of this thread. Otherwise, I'll do the same with a crap load more 'What Ifs'. And I have plenty more imagination then you can muster.... The guy was out of control with a shotgun, that's a fact. Alright, three times then. [:)] K.

igor2003 -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 8:13:37 AM)
--FR-- Much has been said, on both sides of the debate, about how the kid that was shot was "clean cut" and had no criminal history. Okay...I want to propose another "what if"... What if...EVERY aspect of this case leading UP TO the shooting was identical to what actually happened, BUT it turns out that the person shot was a 30-something criminal with a long arrest record, that was now on the run for multiple murders. Would that change the sympathies on either side of the debate, and if so, how?

TheHeretic -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 8:16:55 AM)
FYI, Cloudboy. Mr. Kaarma is brown, while the German kid was white. You might want to make a note of that, since race is now the totally unrelated thing you want to run with on the thread. It's funny how you point out that intruders flee, and even acknowledge the effectiveness of stating there is a gun present, apparently without comprehending that a big reason intruders flee is because they don't want to get their asses shot.

tweakabelle -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 8:20:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle an example would be that the householder would permitted to use deadly force only if his/her life or his/her family's lives was in immediate danger. The problem is, there's no way to know and great potential risk attached to finding out. Maybe he means you harm, maybe he doesn't, and maybe he will if you interfere with his interest in obtaining your valuables. How are you supposed to know? And at what risk are you supposed to find out? Castle doctrine grants a homeowner the right to assume that anyone sneaking into his house in the middle of the night is not there for friendly purposes. This is a reasonable supposition. If the intruder's unknown purpose did not involve the homeowner in some way, why would he pick a time when the owner was at home to enter the dwelling in the first place? That's a Darwin Award right there. K. It is far from clear to me that there is no way of distinguishing an intruder's motives. The incident in Montana followed a recent law change to strengthen the castle doctrine: "Nearly every state has a law on the books giving residents the legal right to defend their homes, but Montana is among several that have gone further. With backing from the National Rifle Association and the support of the state’s Democratic governor, Montana passed a stronger law in 2009 that placed the burden on prosecutors to rebut claims of self-defense. Under the old laws, residents were justified in using force only if an assailant tried to enter their home in a “violent, riotous or tumultuous manner.” The new law eliminates that language and makes it clear that residents can use force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an assault on themselves or someone else in the home." from the OP It seems reasonable to assert that the old laws recognise there are ways to establishing whether the intruder's aims are "violent, riotous or tumultuous" or otherwise. Certainly, Kaarma's reaction of shooting first made no attempt to distinguish the intruder's aims. He gave the intruder no opportunity of surrendering, he declined to even identify whether the intruder was a friend or foe, or even a human or a stray animal. Protected by the new law he just blazed away. Under the old laws, Kaarma's legal position would be a lot weaker. So there does seem to be an argument that the changes to Montana's laws enabled Kaarma to behave in the reckless fashion he chose.

TheHeretic -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 9:04:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy When I was child it was quite common in our neighborhood to go exploring and sneaking into other peoples' yards. Many participants in this thread would have shot us dead or approached us with a loaded weapon. We would have regarded them as crazy. The law in Maryland would prosecute them as murderers. It must have been nice, to have had such an idyllic childhood. I'm not likely to ever forget the old guy who would send us running like hell from his watermelon patch, with a load of rock salt to hurry us on our way.

Kirata -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 9:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy When I was child it was quite common in our neighborhood to go exploring and sneaking into other peoples' yards. Many participants in this thread would have shot us dead or approached us with a loaded weapon. It must have been nice, to have had such an idyllic childhood. I'm not likely to ever forget the old guy who would send us running like hell from his watermelon patch, with a load of rock salt to hurry us on our way. It's probably also nice to be able to make shit up and believe it. K.

BamaD -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 9:33:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle an example would be that the householder would permitted to use deadly force only if his/her life or his/her family's lives was in immediate danger. The problem is, there's no way to know and great potential risk attached to finding out. Maybe he means you harm, maybe he doesn't, and maybe he will if you interfere with his interest in obtaining your valuables. How are you supposed to know? And at what risk are you supposed to find out? Castle doctrine grants a homeowner the right to assume that anyone sneaking into his house in the middle of the night is not there for friendly purposes. This is a reasonable supposition. If the intruder's unknown purpose did not involve the homeowner in some way, why would he pick a time when the owner was at home to enter the dwelling in the first place? That's a Darwin Award right there. K. It is far from clear to me that there is no way of distinguishing an intruder's motives. The incident in Montana followed a recent law change to strengthen the castle doctrine: "Nearly every state has a law on the books giving residents the legal right to defend their homes, but Montana is among several that have gone further. With backing from the National Rifle Association and the support of the state’s Democratic governor, Montana passed a stronger law in 2009 that placed the burden on prosecutors to rebut claims of self-defense. Under the old laws, residents were justified in using force only if an assailant tried to enter their home in a “violent, riotous or tumultuous manner.” The new law eliminates that language and makes it clear that residents can use force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an assault on themselves or someone else in the home." from the OP It seems reasonable to assert that the old laws recognise there are ways to establishing whether the intruder's aims are "violent, riotous or tumultuous" or otherwise. Certainly, Kaarma's reaction of shooting first made no attempt to distinguish the intruder's aims. He gave the intruder no opportunity of surrendering, he declined to even identify whether the intruder was a friend or foe, or even a human or a stray animal. Protected by the new law he just blazed away. Under the old laws, Kaarma's legal position would be a lot weaker. So there does seem to be an argument that the changes to Montana's laws enabled Kaarma to behave in the reckless fashion he chose. We could save so many lives with a law requiring burglars and other criminals to provide a notarized letter of intent specifying the conditions under which they will become violent. Homeowners would be required to produce this letter in any situation which turned violent.

igor2003 -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 9:45:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether And when did this teenager invade and rob the homeowner? In order to invade, he have to...BREACH THE STRUCTURE. That did not happen. Actually, a "breach" does not necessarily mean "forcible entry". Any time someone goes uninvited into or onto another persons property they have breached the boundaries of that property. What did the teenager have on his person that was of significant value that was also the homeowner's property? Nothing. So you seem to be saying that as long as the kid wasn't actually holding anything "of significant value", it was okay for him to be there? Would it have made any difference if the kid had the homeowners gold watch in his pocket? If you knew there were two burglaries in the area, would you leave any portion of your house open at night? Doors unlocked? This homeowner had his door not just unlocked, but opened. Either he was a complete idiot or he was setting a trap. Given other information known, it sounds like he was setting a trap. I don't think anyone has said that what the homeowner did wasn't stupid. But from several different articles that I have read, it was the wife (girlfriend?) that left the door open, with the intent of going back out for one more cigarette before going to bed, at which time the door would have been closed. Also, it was the wife's idea to get and install the "security" system. Kaarma is said to have actually taken down the camera's etc., after which the wife put them back up a second time. Also, it was the wife's idea to put the purse in the garage, claiming that the intent was so that IF it was taken there would be easily identifiable and traceable things for the police to find and identify. Also, the purse was in a dark corner of the garage, unable to be seen directly from the street. IF (and I do mean "if") that is all true, then Kaarma didn't set any trap. A 'criminal' in our legal system is one that has been found GUILTY of a crime in a court of law. Until then, they are considered 'honest and law abiding citizens'. You would shoot an 'honest and law abiding citizen'? Love to see the backpedalling on this one.... Actually, a criminal is anyone participating in illegal activity. This is totally different than a CONVICTED criminal. If I see someone smash the window of my neighbor's car, get in, hot wire it, then drive down the street, I don't have to consider him to be a "honest and law abiding citizen". This doesn't require anyone to backpedal to see and understand. Second, do you really think by shooting one person, all crime everywhere would instantly stop and no more crime would never take place for the rest of mankind's future history? WOW....someone thinks he's the center of the universe.... Well of course that would happen! (And yes, I know my answer is every bit as stupid as your question.) The moment you fire a gun, you ARE responsible for everything down range. Your saying you would attack an unknown and unidentified intruder with intent to kill? That you would assume a great many things without an ounce of evidence to support any of it? As I have already said, pretty much everyone agrees that the homeowners actions were stupid. But the "without an ounce of evidence" isn't quite true, now is it? The simple fact that there was some uninvited person with unknown intent in the guy's garage is more than an "ounce" of evidence, all by itself. Curious how the ones that robbed him and this teenager have no connection to each other, isn't it? Actually, there WAS a connection. They were all thieves participating in this "garage hopping" game. Who is to say the police did not help? How did the thieves...GET...CAUGHT? Go ahead Kirata....TRY...to bullshit this one.... It is my understanding that the previous thieves didn't get caught. I think (if memory serves) that the previous thieves were identified, after the fact, due to finger pointing from fellow high school students. I have seen the following statement in several different news reports...: "Kaarma and Pflager reported the previous thefts to the Missoula Police Dept., but say they were unaware of action being taken to protect their home." You also have this silly assumption that parents know 100% what goes on in their kid's lives. You have kids, right? Can you give me the full script of every single thing they said within the last 24 hours? Including all the times they were not in your presence? Can you account for all of their actions and where-abouts; including when you were not observing them? That's your argument taken to its logical conclusion. Like several of your statements and claims, this one is, of course, somewhat "over the top", and you know it. No one can know 100% of the time what their kids are doing. But I think it is a pretty well known fact that people with better parenting skills don't NEED to know where their kids are or what they are doing 100% of the time. If you have raised your kids right and taught them to respect other people's property the likelihood that they will be entering someones home to commit a theft goes down remarkably. There is a kid who is dead because he made one error of judgement. Sometimes one is all it takes, but I seriously doubt that this was the kids first rodeo. Just because he had never been caught before doesn't mean this was his first time. Killed by a man who made a pile of errors in his judgement. If the teenager was a burglar....PROVE IT. There is no evidence to support the claim. #1, The kid was illegally inside Kaarma's garage. #2, The kid from Ecuador STATED that the kid from Germany had gone into the garage to commit a theft. Why did the homeowner not turn on lights or carry a flashlight? He can afford a shotgun but not a flashlight? Exactly where have you read that Kaarma didn't own a flashlight? Not owning and not using are two totally different things. Sounds like a flimsy excuse. And yes, there are all sorts of 'what ifs'; like, why didn't the teenager have Terminator Armor? Your trying to justify a homeowner's actions whom are clearly questionable at best. His motivates are not 'pure and clean' self defense. People played roles, but only one of those groups did actual real wrong. Illegal entry isn't wrong? Theft isn't wrong? What world do you live in? Your going to have us all believe that a missing beer bottle would have financially crashed the homeowner? Seriously? Where did anyone claim that? That is what 'garage hoping' is..... What "garage hopping" is, is THEFT. Now, I think most people will agree that the value of one beer is not worth a death sentence. But ANY theft is not just "being silly" (as has been claimed by other posters). Had this kid walked into a convenience store, taken one bottle of beer, and walked out, should the store owner have just looked the other way and said, "Oh well, he was just being silly," and let it go at that? Should a home owner feel any different? And where is the line drawn between "being silly" and "criminal activity"? Two bottles of beer? A six pack? A case? Or do you wait and let it go on until the kid ends up shoving a gun in a store owner's face and demanding cash? If your afraid of your house being burglarized....YOU LOCK YOU FUCKING HOUSE UP. You....LEAVE THE OUTSIDE LIGHTS ON. You...CLOSE ALL DOORS and WINDOWS. Oh sorry, I'm talking common sense..... These people hadn't gone to bed for the night. They had intended to return to the garage for another cigarette. They should have the right to air out their garage without someone thinking they can just walk in and help themselves to whatever is in there. What they did or didn't do does NOT excuse the actions of the kid that walked in, uninvited, with the intent to commit THEFT. Again, I am NOT excusing the actions of the home owner, but he is in NO WAY the only one at fault here.

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 10:19:45 AM)
Actually, a criminal is anyone participating in illegal activity. You are absolutely right. Petty theft and murder are both illegal activities.[8\|] If I see someone smash the window of my neighbor's car, get in, hot wire it, then drive down the street, I don't have to consider him to be a "honest and law abiding citizen". This doesn't require anyone to backpedal to see and understand. Someone sells a car to your neighbor on the "easy payment plan". The neighbor misses a half dozen payments and the seller comes over puts a rock thorugh the window and hot wires the car and leaves. Making decissions without knowing all the facts is not always a prudent course of action. Does anyone here believe that if the shooter knew all of the facts that he would have done this?

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 10:22:39 AM)
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic It must have been nice, to have had such an idyllic childhood. I'm not likely to ever forget the old guy who would send us running like hell from his watermelon patch, with a load of rock salt to hurry us on our way. So you would be one of those who in your past did this criminal act and got away with it but feel that it would have been ok if the farmer would have shot you dead...[8\|]yeah right

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 10:26:01 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD We could save so many lives with a law requiring burglars and other criminals to provide a notarized letter of intent specifying the conditions under which they will become violent. Homeowners would be required to produce this letter in any situation which turned violent. And yet you constantly fill your post with sniviling about all of the restrictive laws that government places on us all. Now you want another restrictive law that will not be followed and is unenforcable. Has the word consistancy been forever removed from your vocabulary? Why the constant "flip flopping"?

TheHeretic -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 10:53:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Some of the things I own are priceless to me. Some are, essentially, irreplaceable. Go look up a 1962 Fender Stratocaster or a 1974 Univox Les Paul; the latter are no longer made and I rebuilt it, myself, to my own personal specs. Worth killing for? I don't know. I don't know that they're not. There isn't a single object in this house that I would be willing to coldbloodedly say that I will kill someone over. What might be that precious to me in here isn't a tangible item at all. This is my home. I can walk in the door, flick the lock, and the rest of the world can go to hell. We walk around naked here. Come knocking at the door, or wandering around in the yard, and big dogs will bark at you through the front window. To me and mine, this is a sacred space. Don't fuck with that. I bought my first gun about 10 years ago, when I moved into a place where rattlesnake encounters were common. Then, I kept it loaded with the right kind of shot, and it lived right by the front door. Today it stays in the bedrom, loaded with something more substantial. Always though, in every place I have ever lived, I have had some tool around to assist in defending the place, should I need to. The butt end of a pool cue, sitting on two nails above the front door, a 4-cell Maglite, an ax that felt just right in my hand. The castle doctrine isn't about guns.

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 11:17:17 AM)
This ain't the 60's any more. Is this the safe secure "good ol days" of the 60's you were refering to? 1960 - HUAC riot, May 13, Students protest House Un-American Activities Committee hearings, 12 injured, 64 arrested, San Francisco, California 1960 – El Cajon Boulevard Riot, August 20, San Diego, California 1960 - Ax Handle Saturday, August 27, Jacksonville, Florida 1962 - Ole Miss riot 1962, September 3 - October 1, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi 1963 - Cambridge riot 1963, June 14, Cambridge, Maryland 1964 - the July 16 police-killing of James Powell, in the Yorkville neighbourhood just south of East Harlem, precipitates a string of race riots in July and August, including: 1964 - Harlem Riot of 1964, July 16–22, New York City, New York 1964 - Rochester 1964 race riot, July 24–25, Rochester, New York 1964 - Jersey City 1964 race riot, August 2–4, Jersey City, New Jersey 1964 - Paterson 1964 race riot, August 11–13, Paterson, New Jersey 1964 - Elizabeth 1964 race riot, August 11–13, Elizabeth, New Jersey 1964 - Chicago 1964 race riot, Dixmoor riot, August 16–17, Chicago, Illinois 1964 - Philadelphia 1964 race riot, August 28–30, Philadelphia, PA 1965 - Watts Riots, August 11-17, Los Angeles, California 1966 - Division Street Riots, June 12–14, Humboldt Park, Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 1966 - Omaha riot of 1966, July 2, Omaha, Nebraska 1966 - Hunter's Point Riot, September 27 - October 1, San Francisco, California 1966 - Hough Riots, July 18–24, Cleveland, Ohio 1966 - Waukegan Riot, August 27, Waukegan, Illinois 1966 - Benton Harbor Riot, August 30 - September 4, Benton Harbor, Michigan 1966 - Atlanta riot of 1966, September 6, Atlanta, Georgia 1966 - Sunset Strip curfew riots, November 12, various other flareups, basis for the song "For What It's Worth (Buffalo Springfield song)", West Hollywood, California 1967 - Long Hot Summer of 1967 refers to a year in which 159 race riots erupted across the United States, including: 1967 - Belle Isle riot, April 30, Detroit, Michigan {Source: Detroit Free Press' "The Detroit Almanac", 2001.} 1967 - Roxbury riot, June 2–7 Boston, Massachusetts 1967 - Tampa Riots, June 11, Tampa, Florida 1967 - Buffalo riot of 1967, June 27, Buffalo, New York 1967 - 1967 Newark riots, July 12–17, Newark, New Jersey 1967 - 1967 Plainfield riots, July 14–21, Plainfield, New Jersey 1967 - Cairo riot, July 17, Cairo, Illinois 1967 - Durham riot, July 19, Durham, North Carolina 1967 - Memphis riot, July 20, Memphis, Tennessee 1967 - 1967 Detroit riot, July 23–29, Detroit, Michigan 1967 - Cambridge riot of 1967, July 24, a.k.a. the H. Rap Brown riot, Cambridge, Maryland 1967 - Milwaukee riot, July 30, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1967 - Minneapolis North Side Riots, August, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota 1967 - Dow riot, October 18, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 1968 - Orangeburg Massacre, S.C. State Univ., February 8, Orangeburg, South Carolina 1968 - Memphis Sanitation Strike riot, March 28, Memphis, Tennessee 1968 - Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., April 4, Memphis, Tennessee, precipitates all April 4-14 riots, including: 1968 - Detroit MLK-assassination riot, April 4-5, Detroit, Michigan {Source: "Violence in the Model City", Sidney Fine.} 1968 - 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, April 4–8, Washington, D.C. 1968 - Baltimore riot of 1968, April 6–12, Baltimore, MD 1968 - 1968 Chicago riots, West Side Riots, April 7–14, Chicago, Illinois 1968 - Avondale riot of 1968, April 8, Cincinnati, Ohio 1968 - 1968 Kansas City riot, April 9, Kansas City, Missouri 1968 - Wilmington Riot of 1968, April 9-10, Wilmington, Delaware 1968 - Columbia University protests of 1968, April 23, New York City, New York 1968 - Cobo Hall riot, May 13, Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan {Source: "Violence in the Model City", Sidney Fine.} 1968 - Salisbury riot, May 18–20, Salisbury, Maryland 1968 - Louisville riots of 1968, May 27, Louisville, Kentucky 1968 - Glenville Shootout, July 23–28, Cleveland, Ohio 1968 - Liberty City riot, August 7–13, Miami, Florida 1968 - 1968 Democratic National Convention protests, including riot August 27-28, Chicago, Illinois 1968 - "Cobo II" riot, October 29, Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan {Source: "Violence in the Model City", Sidney Fine.} 1968 - Veterans' Memorial Hall riot, November 1, Detroit, Michigan {Source: "Violence in the Model City", Sidney Fine.} 1969 - Republic of New Africa riot, March 29, Detroit, Michigan {Source: "Violence in the Model City", Sidney Fine.} 1969 - Zip to Zap riot, May 9–11, Zap, North Dakota 1969 - People's Park Riots, May, Berkeley, California 1969 - 1969 Greensboro uprising, May 21–25, Greensboro, North Carolina 1969 - Cairo disorders, May–December, Cairo, Illinois 1969 - Stonewall riots, June 28 - July 2, New York City, New York 1969 - San Diego Riot, July 13, San Diego, California 1969 - Youngstown Riot, July 15, Youngstown, Ohio 1969 - Sacramento Disorder, July 17, Shootout between BPP & police, Sacramento, California 1969 - S.E. Melee, July 21, S.E. DC, Washington, DC 1969 - 1969 York Race Riot, July 17-24, York, Pennsylvania 1969 - Passaic Disorder, August 3, Passaic, New Jersey 1969 - Hartford riot, September 2, Hartford, Conn. 1969 - Ft. Lauderdale Riot, September 2, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 1969 - Las Vegas Riot, October 6, Las Vegas, Nevada 1969 - Days of Rage, October 8–11, Weathermen riot in Chicago, Chicago, Illinois It's very sad but....the home owner was right. Why does that not surprise me?

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 11:20:52 AM)
I bought my first gun about 10 years ago, when I moved into a place where rattlesnake encounters were common. Roflmfao...the rest of us just use a broom stick.

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 11:23:00 AM)
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'd have set the dogs on him for sure, though. Would this be before or after you had ascertained just who or what was in the garage?[/b

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 11:32:48 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Your question , at is an oxymoron, if they are breaking into your home they have already expressed a willingness to commit whatever violence they need to to get what they want. Only in your mind. The law recognizes that burglary is different in quallity from robbery. The law recognizes that armed burglary is different in quaity from unarmed burglary. The law recognizes that petty theft is different than grand theft. Could you name us the civil jurisdictions wherein it is legal to use deadly force to protect property? Yes I am quite aware that all jurisdictions provide for the use of deadly force to deal with violence against persons(of course with the recent scotus rueling re: personhood for corps. this could get sticky[:)])

thompsonx -> RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills Unarmed German Exchange Student (5/18/2014 11:36:50 AM)
ORIGINAL: Louve00 If he was fearless enough to fight off a dog or dogs, especially if he got passed them, then that, to me, would be determining your life could be in danger. But, you gave the guy a chance to stop, put his hands up and face you as a perpetrator, not an aggressor, you took a stance more people should. [/quote] With several dogs chewing on you, you want us to believe that you would put your hands up and say I give up while he gleefully let the dogs have a little snack...roflmfao....how droll[8\|]

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375