Home defense

[rainfire]

Let's define "Murder" for all the igonrant (or dense) individuals who make up our society, shall we??

Murder : The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied.

Malice aforethought: A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse.

There you have it! There was not a murder here, perhaps bad aim, oops. It happens, probably was aiming for his legs, but since it was dark, he missed.

[Rob Tucker]

Rainfire, you have no idea whether there was a murder with malice aforethought or not in this case. All you have heard is what I have heard. A third hand version of the events as put forth by the defendant. The shooter who told the cops who told the press. And now you think you know precisely what happened.

Be patient. Lots of room in a remote rural area for people to know, or know of, each other and have complicated histories. I suspect there is more to this tale then we have yet heard. It is rarely as simple as it may appear at first glance.

[rainfire]

You know Rob, the guy has a criminal record ( complicated history LOL) a mile long, that is public knowledge you can pull up through the courts under his last name, not just heresay. Go check it out yourself. While your at it contact all his victims and send them some of your condolences as well

Courts generally look at a persons criminal history during any and all types of prededings. Let's see, we have a dead man with a history of burglary and assault charges and a man that has no criminal history ( which is also public info) who shot at a person on his property at 2am in the morning.[What do you suppose this Milloli man was doing, going for a jog?

[Rob Tucker]

Oops. Sorry. My bad. Obviously he should have been executed.

Didn't I read that the location had a pot growing greenhouse? Is that legal? Isn't that something like a magnet for thieves? I must have missed the part about a medical marijuana permit. Wasn't the body found in the road? Was there a car nearby? How did the deceased get there? Was there a third person involved? If so who?

Lot's of questions. Not many answers yet

[rainfire]

There, there. No need be sorry, sometimes we can't see the forest for the tree's. That what enlightening is for.[]

[ric]

Thanks for the sermon Paul, I'm glad you are here to enlighten me.

I don't know either of the people in this case, what I thought we are discussing is a larger issue: whether someone has the right to defend themselves, and a few interesting possible scenarios, such as whether a shot in the back can be considered defensive. Perhaps you are confused by logical discussion in this case.

By the way, consider this: an intruder need not have a weapon to be able to harm you. So go ahead with your preaching, without any sensible explanation at all ... tell me how stupid I am.

[Green]

I recommend that any and all criminals when planning a burglary bring a watchtower and awake magazines with them. In the event they survive or they are arrested they may have some recourse, also if they show up at their intended target on a bicycle wearing dress clothes, white shirt, slacks, they might be able to pass off as mormans ! They might even get a good lawyer and end up owning the intended targets house.

[PaulW]

I'm struggling to imagine how shooting someone in the back twice is self defence but maybe I lack imagination.

In any case you suggested that someone should be killed for opening their mouth and operating their larynx, in certain circumstances. I'm going out on a limb here, but I doubt you'd ever get away with that in court.

[JWFITZ]

Unfortunately the way the law sits in many areas the victim of home invasion fights two battles.

Once, for his or her family, against the immediate threat of someone--and a someone who regardless of the context of 100000 years of human history that is ignorant that nobody, anywhere, in any human culture has the right to be screwing around in the dark with other peoples stuff in their own private space without permission

Isn't sensible to assume that a person who is ignorant of the commonly held and understood boundaries of private space--boundaries held by everyone in the world and for the duration of human history--or just doesn't give a damn--represents a real danger, either from a mad man or a psychopath?

The SECOND battle, unfortunately, will be against a court that wants to second guess all that for ideological reasons.

I'd suggest that's unfair. Many people understand that, and this topic is indicative of a backlash against such foolishness. Expect the trend to strengthen.

[Greg]

I don't understand why this whole thing is so controversial. No one here is questioning a homeowner's right to protect property, and there are many effective ways to do this; Fences, dogs, lights, alarms, cameras, non lethal firearms to name a few. Ever been hit by a paintball gun set on a higher pressure? Hurts like hell(and leaves an identifying splotch)

The use of lethal force is the issue. The laws are very clear on it. I don't know how this trial will shake out, but so far it sounds like lethal force wasn't warranted (even if the victim was a career criminal)

The reason I feel this way is because I fear paranoid, untrained, angry, addicts with shotguns more than I fear pot rippers. Then there is the next person shot, who may not be a criminal, but instead Auntie Bertha stumbling around in the dark looking for her poodle.

Finally, before some one questions my addicts comment, I realize that pakalolo has many beneficial qualities and legalization would solve a lot of problems. It can be, however, addictive to some one with the gene (like me). I personally feel that a great many of the people with marijuana certificates just want to get high.

Metcalf is going to jail. Do you think he feels it will be worth it, or is he re thinking his actions? lquade mentioned that he would shoot an intruder and do the time. I respect this a lot more than the people who are trying to make a hero and example out of someone who so obviously f*cked up.


punatoons