joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Point of reference. The kid didn't break into the house. Per the police investigation, that the door was unlocked and left open. And we had a....massive...debate on whether 'an open door' constituted 'breaking and entering' exactly, since nothing was broken nor forced. That the kid was in the garage and never made it to the 'dwelling' area of the house (another hotly debated issue at the time this came to the news).
Point of reference, regardless of any "massive debate" you're wrong.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-overview.html
Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. Unlike robbery, which involves use of force or fear to obtain another person's property, there is usually no victim present during a burglary.
See the bold part?
Prove intent. Since we cant talk to the suspect without a 'Speak with Dead' spell, it might be tough. However, after RESEARCHING and INVESTIGATING, police investigators came to the conclusion the boy was in the garage for reasons that had no intention of causing harm or destruction to the people in the house, or their property.
So if its burglary, you have the burden of evidence to argue here. An you dont have it!
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
Breaking and Entry
The first element of burglary involves the burglar breaking into and entering a structure. The breaking-in can occur in two ways: actual and constructive.
Actual breaking involves physical force: picking a lock or kicking a door in, for example. It could even be a very slight use of force, such as pushing open a door thats been left ajar.
Constructive breaking, on the other hand, entails means of gaining entry that don't use physical force: threats, blackmail or fraud, for example.
And neither of these apply. The door was left....WIDE OPEN and UNLOCKED. Maybe I didn't say that a few times already, right? So why would he bust up a door, that was already wide open enough for him to step through without touching it? Again...you have the burden of evidence to prove. And you...DON'T HAVE IT!
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
However a burglar breaks in to the structure, they must also enter the structure in order to satisfy this element. The entry can be minimal; the burglar doesnt have to actually walk into a building in order to commit a burglary. Sticking a hand through a window counts as an entry sufficient to support a charge of burglary.
As shown before you made this silly argument, the police already made the investigation months ago. They arrested the guy and handled him to the prosecution for trial. He was found guilty of killing that boy whom had no evil nor harmful intentions. Did the kid do something stupid and unwise? Yes. Has it happen when someone was lurking for legitimate or 'easily explained' reasons got called by gun owners whom remained in the house and let the police deal with it? Yes. In fact many times more. Because gun owners, like non-gun owners try to do the sane and safe approach to stuff like this.
|
RE: Montana homeowner found guilty in slaying of German... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread