It took a gun to stop these guys

[L1A1Rocker]

http://www.local10.com/news/15698648/detail.html



MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Fla. -- An intruder who tried to break into a southwest Miami-Dade County home was shot and killed early Tuesday morning, police said.

The resident's family and friends said he had a gun because he had been burglarized as many as 10 times in the past six months. Neighbors said the resident, who runs a landscaping business out of the home, had already had thousands of dollars in lawn equipment stolen.




I wonder how many times the police have been called. It would appear to me that the word was out where to get good stuff to sell. Police just cannot be everywhere, it is up to the person to take responsibility for himself and his "castle".

[sharesunited]

1. Deadly force to protect property?

That's vigilantism pure and simple. Judge, jury and executioner.

[L1A1Rocker]

2. Not according to the law and if you bother to read the article

there were gun shots exchanged.

And we are not talking about mere property. These are the tools the man needs to but food on the table. Definitely worth protecting. Too bad some think it is worth risking their lives to steel property.

[mkultra]

3. its illegal to use deadly force to protect property in every state

[L1A1Rocker]

4. I take it you're not up on EVERY states laws.

Because you are dead wrong.

[mkultra]

6. then do tell

In which state can you use deadly force to protect property?

[L1A1Rocker]

24. During the hours of darkness in Texas

you can. In fact, during the hours of darkness you can use deadly force to stop or prevent criminal mischief. Yep, that means if you catch kids "papering" you yard at night and you use deadly force you ARE withing the law.

[L1A1Rocker]

25. Now there have been some changes to TX law with the new Castle Doctrine

law and I'm not real up on those. But I have been told that you can now use deadly force to stop or prevent theft even during the daylight. That seems to be true because of the incident over in East Texas where the guy shot two guys coming out of his neighbors window with electronic stuff. He shot them and he was not charged. The whole thing was recorded on a 911 tape too. The neighbor initially called 911 but when the thieves started to leave the premises he took action.

[iverglas]

30. "he took action"

Yeah. He committed murder.

Because NOT EVEN IN TEXAS does the law actually permit anyone to kill someone who is stealing a stereo from someone else's premises.

If you don't believe me, look it up. I'm sure you know how to do that.

The reason he was not charged would be because the prosecutor did not believe s/he would be able to secure a conviction.

And the reason for that would be that s/he would have been unable to empanel a jury composed of non-scum willing to do their duty and apply the law. I guess that's Texas for you. The Texas I got to see up close and personal more than I ever wanted to, anyhow.


Here's the audio of the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE

What a piece of filthy fucking shit. As is anyone who does not condemn his actions.

[L1A1Rocker]

32. His actions were legal and withing Texas law.

I wish he was my neighbor.

So is the vulgarity how you normally speak? What a joy you must be around the dinner table.

[iverglas]

35. quote the law

Or sit there looking like someone who knows nothing and can't speak a true word while I point and laugh.

I'll throw in a few naughty words while I'm at it, just for good measure.

[L1A1Rocker]

36. Nope, the guy was never charged that's good enough.

I believe it's in the new Texas Castle doctrine law. You can start there if you want.

But in the spirit of all the time you've been asked to prove something and failed, I decline your request.

Go pound sand for all I care.

[mkultra]

73. interesting priority

murder is ok but cussing is off limits.



Sounds confusing.

[L1A1Rocker]

33. deleted as duplicate

[L1A1Rocker]

38. Not only do I not Condemn his actions I commend him.

Go ahead, tell me what you think of me for not condemn his actions. Let that vulgarity of yours fly.

[iverglas]

41. friend,

nothing I could ever say could rival the vulgarity of someone commending cold-blooded murder.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L1A1Rocker]

46. Here is what you said generalizing about not condemning that upstanding citizen

What a piece of filthy fucking shit. As is anyone who does not condemn his actions.

[L1A1Rocker]

47. Now lets see if you have the courage to call me that directly. I'm calling you out.

You said it now back it up or back it down.

[iverglas]

50. oh dear

I'm quaking in my tall boots.

Anyone who does not condemn the cold-blooded murder of another human being is a filthy piece of shit.

I have no idea whether you condemn such things or not. I'm just not willing to believe a word you say, you see.

[L1A1Rocker]

51. Do you normally forget what you read within two minutes?

Here is a refresher:

L1A1Rocker (898 posts) Thu Mar-27-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Not only do I not Condemn his actions I commend him.
Edited on Thu Mar-27-08 10:02 PM by L1A1Rocker
Go ahead, tell me what you think of me for not condemn his actions. Let that vulgarity of yours fly.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top


iverglas (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-27-08 10:06 PM

Response to Reply #38


41. friend,


nothing I could ever say could rival the vulgarity of someone commending cold-blooded murder.




So everyone here knows what YOU said and everyong here knows that I do not condemn him and that I actually condon his actions.

So everglas, tell me by name what you think of me. I doubt you have the intestenal fortutude to do it. I just want to prove it.

[iverglas]

49. yes; and your point is?

[L1A1Rocker]

52. That you wont back up your previous statement. Thank you, didn't think you would.

[iverglas]

54. back up my previous statement?

What, you want proof that someone who doesn't condemn cold-blooded murder is a filthy fucking piece of shit?

That there is an opinion, friend. I'll back it up with a couple of millennia of human history and philosophy, if you like. Here ya go:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=condemn+cold-blooded+murder&btnG=Search&meta=

Lots of people condemning cold-blooded murder. Every one of whom, I'll betcha, would regard anyone who didn't condemn cold-blooded murder as a filthy fucking piece of shit. Based on pretty much the same thing I base my opinion on:

the fundamental human RIGHT TO LIFE.

If you don't acknowledge that there is a fundamental human right to life, you're just not part of the human conversation. If you choose to place yourself outside the fence separating human civilization from the garbage dump where cold-blooded murder was tossed many, many generations ago, that's your choice.

But I don't know what your choice is. I only know what you're typing in these posts. And like I said, I don't believe a single word you type, about yourself or anything else. So I have no basis on which to form an opinion of you. So I express none.

Now, I may have an opinion in the same way as I have an opinion about a lot of things: something that has just sprung to mind all unbidden and that I know I couldn't offer up any good basis for in public. You know, things like: Ted Nugent suffers from psychopathic personality disorder -- I'm probably right, but I don't have the facts I need to demonstrate that my opinion is based on good evidence and reasoning. So as I always do in such cases, I would speak it aloud only in the privacy of my own living room where it can have no public effect, since I'm not a demagogue who attempts to sway public opinion by appealing to prejudice rather than to reason.

So the upshot is: run along and play now, will you?

[L1A1Rocker]

Well that's what I thought. You'd stop just short of calling me those

wonderful things by name. I called you out Everglas and you backed down. We all now know what your made of.

Now run along to someplace where you can fool other people. It won't fly here anymore. We all know what you are.

[L1A1Rocker]

56. Well that's what I thought. You'd stop just short of calling me those

wonderful things by name. I called you out Everglas and you backed down. We all now know what your made of.

Now run along to someplace where you can fool other people. It won't fly here anymore. We all know what you are.

[iverglas]

58. apparently, if it's worth saying once

then it's worth saying twice. Given as how you seem to do that every time.

Here's something that may be helpful for you: it's never actually worth saying once.

[L1A1Rocker]

59. Well, since you can't seem to respond to it apparently it needs to be said again.

Well that's what I thought. You'd stop just short of calling me those wonderful things by name. I called you out Everglas and you backed down. We all now know what your made of.

Now run along to someplace where you can fool other people. It won't fly here anymore. We all know what you are.

[iverglas]

60. oh my

We all know what you are.

And what would that be, then, Mr. big brave caller-outer?

[L1A1Rocker]

61. I'll respond in the same manner you like to.

You know what you are. And so do all the rest of us. Ms backer-downer.













































































.

[iverglas]

63. oh dear

I guess that makes you no better than me, in your eyes. Poor you. Will your head explode?

[L1A1Rocker]

64. Laughing, Oh you make this too easy! Ha Ha Ha! No it means

you deserve not better than you give.












































Please get these things right.

[L1A1Rocker]

62. HaHaHaHa You funny!

[Indy Lurker]

67. Isn't he innocent until PROVEN guilty

How do you know what happened once he went outside?

How do you know the two men didn't try to attack him?

If the local law enforcement didn't even have enough evidence to arrest him, how can you be so sure he is guilty of something?

[iverglas]

68. what seems to be your problem?

Did you listen to the audio tape?

If the local law enforcement didn't even have enough evidence to arrest him ...

If the moon were made of green cheese ...

How do YOU know anyone didn't have enough evidence to arrest him??

I'll stick with what I said: the prosecutor knew that a conviction would never be secured, because of the nature of juries in the jurisdiction.

Isn't he innocent until PROVEN guilty

Nope. He's innocent if he's innocent, and guilty if he's guilty. He may not be PUNISHED unless guilt is proved to the requisite standard and he is convicted.

Do you really imagine that if I steal a chocolate bar from the 7-11 on the corner and no one sees me, I am innocent of theft??

Allow me to quote my illustrious cousin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP

Woolmington v. DPP <1935> AC 462 is a famous House of Lords case in English law, where the presumption of innocence was first articulated in the commonwealth.

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.

That's what "innocent until proved guilty" means.

It very much does not mean that there is no reality until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Yeesh. If that were the case, we'd all just be sitting here in suspended animation because nobody had proved we existed.

Any more than "innocent until proved guilty" means that a wrongfully convicted person actually did what s/he was wrongfully convicted of. S/he may have been proved guilty in court, but s/he was still innocent.

See how that works?

[Indy Lurker]

70. your mincing words

Let me re-phrase.

Isn't there a "presumption of innocence"


I did listen to the tape. It is a severely edited version of the 8 minute 911 call.

here is the full audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0


What the tape doesn't cover is what happened in the 2.5 seconds after Joe Horn went outside and said "Move, and your dead!" and the first shot is heard.

Joe claims the two guys came into his yard to attack him.



If the two guys were not attacking Joe, then you are right, he got away with murder.

If he was being attacked, it was self defense.

It seems you don't accept that it could have been self defense.

[Turbo Teg]

72. Hmm,

Don't steal shit in Texas I guess. Why are you sticking up for a no good thief, and bashing the homeowner? WTF? Did the homeowner go out and say I'm gonna go find someone to kill tonight? Because the way I read the story, I got the impression that some Thug broke into the mans home and then exchanged gunfire and got killed? The criminal is the one who chose to break the law. The criminal choose the time and place, the homeowner did not. Why are you guys all feeling bad about some scum sucker bieng taken off the street for good anyway? Makes me wonder what some people do for a living?

[slackmaster]

5. Not quite true, but protecting property is not really the issue here

Under some circumstances it is legal to use deadly force to protect property in Texas.

In Florida, as is the case in California where I live and most other states, someone who breaks into an occupied home can be lawfully regarded as a threat to the lives of people who are in the home. Use of deadly force against someone who breaks into your home while you are in it is both legally and morally justified.

[mkultra]

7. oh your right

Texas has a new penal code regarding deadly force against theft or trespass
Penal Code 9.43

[slackmaster]

8. Texas PC 9.43 has been in place for at least 35 years

I believe much longer.

[iverglas]

11. in Florida ...

In Florida, as is the case in California where I live and most other states, someone who breaks into an occupied home can be lawfully regarded as a threat to the lives of people who are in the home.

... and NOT in California, someone who is allegedly believed to have broken into a home may be killed by an occupant of the home, who is PRESUMED by the law to regard that person as a threat, whether the person presents any threat or not, and whether the occupant genuinely believes the person presents any threat or not, and the occupant may not even be CHARGED with an offence where those conditions are met.

As slackmaster knows full well.


Use of deadly force against someone who breaks into your home while you are in it is both legally and morally justified.

Sez slackmaster. As regards "legally", sez the law in some backwaters of the world. As regards "morally", sez anyone with no morals.

[slackmaster]

13. Nice piece of pettifoggery and argumentum ad hominem there, iver

:hi:

So, you say California is a backwater and that I have no morals.

[iverglas]

18. actually, I say

that you are well aware of the nature of the law in Florida and other US states that have followed its lead, and you continue to misrepresent it at every opportunity nonetheless.

So I'll continue to point out the misrepresentation at every opportunity.

California does NOT have the same law that Florida has, which has been described by a judge and an expert in Kentucky, which does have the same law, as

confusing, vague and poorly written.

"I'm not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law," Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said.

... "It is the worst legislation I have ever seen in 40 years," said Lawson, the principal drafter of Kentucky's penal code, which was adopted in 1975.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127275

and of course the numerous other times this has been discussed hereabouts ... like:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128864
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127472
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128994
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=129974

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129974&mesg_id=130189

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/15651715.htm

Home intruder law baffles courts

... The law grants immunity to people who kill, in self defense, an attacker or robber in their homes or anywhere they "have a right to be." Legal experts say confusion over the law threatens to throw a wrench in homicide and assault cases across the state because defendants so frequently argue that they acted in self-defense.

... "In my 32 years of practice in the criminal justice system, I have never seen such a confusing mess," said Harry Rothgerber, the first assistant commonwealth's attorney in Jefferson County.


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73535

In five highly questionable Florida deaths, the law is being used by killers in efforts to avoid conviction for a crime, and one of those deaths predated the law by almost a year. Another homicide, in Kentucky, was downgraded to manslaughter after that state followed Florida's lead and passed an identical statute. In that case, a crack addict used the law to get off with a lighter sentence after beating his drug dealer to death with a lamp.

... James Adam Clem, 27, beat Keith Newberg to death with a bronze lamp in Clem's apartment on August 9, 2004 in Lexington, Kentucky. This summer, he accepted a manslaughter deal and will be eligible for parole in several months. "One of our concerns was, if we couldn't understand it (the law) ourselves, how are we going to get a jury to understand it?" said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Kimberly Henderson Baird. (Lexington Herald Leader, 8-3-06)

CALIFORNIA does NOT have this law, despite your repeated claims that it does. So no, I did NOT say California was a backwater.

And in any event, the Florida law does NOT cover the situation in this case, because the "intruder" was NOT inside the home.

And if you believe that killing someone ("use of deadly force" just such a cute circumlocution?) who breaks into your house, whether or not you have any reasonable fear of death or serious injury, and whether or not you reasonably believe you have no reasonable alternative to using force to avoid it, is moral ... well, I'm sure I wouldn't say you have no morals, since I'm sure you have some.

[slackmaster]

21. I have never said that California had the same law as Florida

WTF are you blathering about?

[iverglas]

28. it's hard to tell at this point

i.e. it can be impossible to tell what you mean every time you say things like this:

In Florida, as is the case in California where I live and most other states, someone who breaks into an occupied home can be lawfully regarded as a threat to the lives of people who are in the home.

California law:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

Prior to that amendment, it just had the same law as any civilized jurisdiction has:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,

3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,

4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

The California law required that the person who was killed have

- manifestly intended to commit a felony by violence or surprise (theft would not, I think, fall into that category, since most burglars intend to commit theft without assaulting or surprising anyone, I would say)

or

- manifestly intended and endeavoured to enter the habitation for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein (which, again, I would suggest does not include stealing property).

AND the California law added the usual requirement that civilized societies apply:

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone.

The amendment has created much the same dog's breakfast as is found elsewhere, although apparently in California the presumption is regarded as rebuttable -- which it is NOT in Florida et al.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/g018175.doc

Therefore, Penal Code section 198.5 creates a rebuttable presumption that anyone who employs deadly force against an intruder “within his residence” has done so in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury.

So ... does the existence of a rebuttable presumption of "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household" mean that "someone who breaks into an occupied home can be lawfully regarded as a threat to the lives of people who are in the home"?

Well, not quite. I mean, I wouldn't be recommending that anyone rely on your statement of the law.

[EricTeri]

9. Not even close my friend.

Texas statute very clearly and specifically permits deadly force to protect property, and Texas is not the only state which allows this.

Incidentally, these criminals had broken into his home. The majority of states allow the use of deadly force against an intruder. In fact, I'm not aware of a single one which DOESN'T. Not saying there isn't one mind you, just that I'm unaware of any. Even CA, NY, IL and MA allow it and they're some of the most anti-gun states in the nation.

[iverglas]

20. incidentally

Incidentally, these criminals had broken into his home.

No, they had not.

Any reason for making untrue statements like this when the facts are but a click away?

[L1A1Rocker]

23. Taken from the article

Police said it appeared two men tried to burglarize the home

[iverglas]

26. truly pathetic

You quote:

Police said it appeared two men tried to burglarize the home

and of course we all notice the absence of punctuation at the end of that bit. Which would be because it is a part of a sentence, the whole of which reads exactly as I quoted it (and this time I emphasize, in an attempt to assist you in your effort not to misrepresent reality):

Police said it appeared two men tried to burglarize the home when the resident
fought with them OUTSIDE and fatally shot one of them.

The fatal shooting occurred at about 2 a.m. OUTSIDE 5851 SW 118th Ave.

Odd how you managed not to put those two aprticular bits in your initial post.

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/OUTSIDE

Preposition: outside

1. Beyond the boundary of; external to
"outside the house"

[L1A1Rocker]

27. And it is commendable that the alert homeowner

took action before this despots actually gained access into his home.

[Indy Lurker]

10. Deadly force to protect life.

Florida Law

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.




If someone is in the "process of unlawfully and forcefully entering" your home, you are "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm."

This is the law in Florida.

[Turbo Teg]

71. Yup,

and in some states, perfectly legal, But, since the man was breaking in, and not leaving with something under his arm, then his intentions may not be known, and would be ok to pop him in some states that won't let you protect belongings because he could be there to do harm. Anyhow, hopefully the man won't be charged with anything. The criminal lifestyle is a dangerous one. Any burglar knows he could be shot or arrested while commiting this crime. That's the risk HE chooses. HE CHOOSE TO POTENTIALLY BE KILLED when he broke into that house. The thing is, he is counting on your good nature to let him go, or at least not kill him. Anyhow, I would have done the same thing as this man. That's my life the thief is taking. My hard work payed for that stuff, that's time I will never get back in my life. Good for the home owner.

[iverglas]

12. the sin of omission?

Police said it appeared two men tried to burglarize the home
when the resident fought with them outside and fatally
shot one of them.

Not even in Florida do you get to kill someone OUTSIDE your home with impunity. The rules of civilized society still apply, at least in theory.


"if you bother to read the article there were gun shots exchanged", says one of our members.

Hmm. I read the araticle. I saw this:

A neighbor told Local 10 she heard several shots,
the scream of the resident and two more shots.

What can I be missing?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

14. interesting .....

http://www.nbc6.net/news/15699166/detail.html

Authorities also are questioning the resident of the house,
and investigators planned to obtain a search warrant.

Has someone who keeps a considerable amount of expensive equipment in his home ever considered improving the security of the premises, I wonder? Particularly when he lives there with a spouse and two children ...

[L1A1Rocker]

16. You said you read the article. Apparently not as

it stated they did already break through his gate. And of course he did obtain a firearm as part of his increased security measures. Sounds reasonable to me.

[MaryCeleste]

69. Ahhh, more blame the victim from you

[EricTeri]

17. I just want to know why ANYONE ....

would have a problem with a criminal being stopped by a law-abiding citizen? I mean, seriously, what kind of twisted mental process believes the citizen should be a willing victim rather than stop someone who is breaking into his home?

[iverglas]

19. I want to know

why you ask such bizarre questions.

[Spoonman]

22. We ALL want to know

why you can't answer a question.

Has someone who keeps a considerable amount of expensive equipment in his home ever considered improving the security of the premises, I wonder? Particularly when he lives there with a spouse and two children ...

It seems you like to infer blame on the the actual victim (homeowner) and not the criminal (dead man)!

Maybe the homeowner should have moved to a different neighborhood, county, state or country to avoid the problem.

Maybe he should have been on welfare and not been trying to run a business to earn honest money.

Maybe he should have just left his gate open and posted a "free" sign on his property to avoid confrontation with criminals.

Was it was the homeowners fault that the criminal was trying to break in?

[iverglas]

29. what a lot of funny stuff

Must be Friday afternoon, eh?

It seems you like to infer blame on the the actual victim (homeowner) and not the criminal (dead man)!

Why don't you folks stick to using words you know the meaning of? "Infer blame on"? What the hell does that mean?

Whatever. I've never been responsible for how things "seem" to people who look at things while twisting themselves into knots.

Maybe the homeowner should have moved to a different neighborhood, county, state or country to avoid the problem.

Seems rather extreme to me, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Maybe he should have been on welfare and not been trying to run a business to earn honest money.

Seems like a dumb idea to me, but whatever.

Maybe he should have just left his gate open and posted a "free" sign on his property to avoid confrontation with criminals.

Well, that would certainly be a fast-acting solution, but again, kinda dumb.

Was it was the homeowners fault that the criminal was trying to break in?

I give up, was it was ...? If I knew what the question was, I could try to answer it.

But not, of course, if it was loaded with some great big fat false premise, like the idea that someone here has said that it was anyone's fault that anyone else did anything.

Then I'd just say: Muuuuu.

[Spoonman]

34. What the hell does that mean?

I'm so sorry, did the big word throw you off.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer

Infer

#4 - to hint; imply; suggest

YOU INFER blame/fault/contribution on the homeowner via your comment:

Has someone who keeps a considerable amount of expensive equipment in his home ever considered improving the security of the premises, I wonder? Particularly when he lives there with a spouse and two children ...

STOP! don't even try to claim otherwise, "us folks" know the meaning of the words YOU wrote.

Also, the inference (damn, more big words) that I/us are somehow inferior to your intellect only demonstrates your shortcomings as a person. You might want to work on that.



By the way, those of us living in the real world know that today is Thursday!

[iverglas]

37. if you can figure out how to "infer" something "on" someone

why, you let me know. I ain't the ones using words to obfuscate here.

If you want to claim I was blaming the householder for something, why don't you just stand up and say so?? No need for all the two-syllable words with the mismatched prepositions.

What I WOULD blame someone who killed another person for is KILLING the other person if action could have been taken to avoid the killing.

That action could include getting out of the situation where you feel endangered, or putting a honking big lock on the place where you keep things you don't want to get stolen, if they were possible options in a given situation.

Why someone could/WOULD choose NOT to secure his/her valuables against theft, and choose to kill someone who tried to steal them instead, I would not understand in a million years.

I have no idea what the situation was in this case. However, I do see someone killed outside a residence, which is one reason I'm not seeing justification/excuse for the homicide, under any rules applied by civilized peoples, and I would need a few more facts before I saw that. If the facts exist, I'm sure someone will find them for us eventually.


Also, the inference (damn, more big words) that I/us are somehow inferior to your intellect only demonstrates your shortcomings as a person. You might want to work on that.

If you catch me using a word that I obviously don't know how to use in a sentence, let me know. I'll promise to work on it.


Oh, thank the dogs it's Thursday. Just wishful thinking on my part. I might still have to get that job done ...

[L1A1Rocker]

39. Forget it, you'd be better off talking to a wall. It's less frustrating too.

[iverglas]

43. now, now

That's not a nice way to talk about yer buddy spoonman.

[L1A1Rocker]

45. My point made.

[L1A1Rocker]

31. Again, more non answerers and further obfuscation.

If you are not going to contribute the please do not post.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

55. it needs to be preserved for posterity

Oh she's probably good for something...
Posted by EricTeri
After all, it isn't called "the oldest profession" for nothing...

Funny. For too many reasons to bother casting before swine.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

65. I contributed a please!

How could anyone have objected??

[L1A1Rocker]

66. No, not really, and we all quickly devolved from there. Oh well, Se La Vi.