German exchange student killed in "stand your ground" type shooting

[downzy]

@ Thin White Duke:

A few years ago I was house sitting for my parents. I was up late watching a movie when I heard noises coming from outside. Hearing several voices, I grabbed a baseball bat that was in the closet and went to investigate. Turns out six or seven teenagers broke into my parents backyard and were cooling off from the hot summer night in my parents pool. According to your black-and-white perspective, wouldn't I then have the right to beat them down with my baseball bat? (I didn't, of course. I yelled at the kids to leave, giving them the opportunity, and they did).

[Guest Len B'stard]

No one said the guy is innocent of nothing.

I know, you're not saying nothing about him...thats the point.

[Thin White Duke]

Setting your own items anywhere you want in your house is fine, because it's your fucking house. I don't care what their motivation was, even if it was to entrap. Sometimes I leave my garage open, sometimes my car has shit in it. Is it my fault if someone walks into my garage? Am I forcing someone to walk into my garage? I see items in stores, I bet I could steal them. Is it the store's fault if I steal from them?

I'm sick of this bullshit "pity the criminal" thing that goes around. You know exactly what your are getting yourself into when you violate the sanctity of someone's home. If someone breaks into my house, they know that I am allowed to kill them. I will not ask, "are you just trying to steal my things or are you going to rape and murder my family?"

if you do not break into someone's house you do not run the risk of being shot to death by the home owner, it is really that simple. people leave garages open all the time with thousands of dollars worth of items in them all the time, it does not give someone the right to steal your belongings. i go to a walmart sometimes and see the sliding glass door to all the video games/video game systems open. this does not give me the right to snag those things because i was "baited".

And this.

It's just common sense, believe it or not.

[downzy]

Setting your own items anywhere you want in your house is fine, because it's your fucking house. I don't care what their motivation was, even if it was to entrap. Sometimes I leave my garage open, sometimes my car has shit in it. Is it my fault if someone walks into my garage? Am I forcing someone to walk into my garage? I see items in stores, I bet I could steal them. Is it the store's fault if I steal from them?

I'm sick of this bullshit "pity the criminal" thing that goes around. You know exactly what your are getting yourself into when you violate the sanctity of someone's home. If someone breaks into my house, they know that I am allowed to kill them. I will not ask, "are you just trying to steal my things or are you going to rape and murder my family?"

if you do not break into someone's house you do not run the risk of being shot to death by the home owner, it is really that simple. people leave garages open all the time with thousands of dollars worth of items in them all the time, it does not give someone the right to steal your belongings. i go to a walmart sometimes and see the sliding glass door to all the video games/video game systems open. this does not give me the right to snag those things because i was "baited".

And this.

It's just common sense, believe it or not.

It's not though. You're now at the point of just repeating posts that you agree with rather than rebut the very legitimate arguments against that position.

Again, if your argument was valid, why are home owners being charged and convicted of murder in these cases? You want to stress the point about the culpability of the intruder without acknowledging the guilt of the home owner who used force that was above and beyond his legal allowance. It's the second part of my last sentence that you seem to want to ignore since it contradicts your entire paradigm of right and wrong, crime and punishment. It is possible to commit a crime when a crime is being committed upon yourself. This is the main sticking point that you don't seem to want to, or are able to, comprehend.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Setting your own items anywhere you want in your house is fine, because it's your fucking house. I don't care what their motivation was, even if it was to entrap. Sometimes I leave my garage open, sometimes my car has shit in it. Is it my fault if someone walks into my garage? Am I forcing someone to walk into my garage? I see items in stores, I bet I could steal them. Is it the store's fault if I steal from them?

I'm sick of this bullshit "pity the criminal" thing that goes around. You know exactly what your are getting yourself into when you violate the sanctity of someone's home. If someone breaks into my house, they know that I am allowed to kill them. I will not ask, "are you just trying to steal my things or are you going to rape and murder my family?"

if you do not break into someone's house you do not run the risk of being shot to death by the home owner, it is really that simple. people leave garages open all the time with thousands of dollars worth of items in them all the time, it does not give someone the right to steal your belongings. i go to a walmart sometimes and see the sliding glass door to all the video games/video game systems open. this does not give me the right to snag those things because i was "baited".

And this.

It's just common sense, believe it or not.

No ones denying that it's common sense that, bait or no bait, if it's in open view, you shouldn't be going to take it. Whats being argued here is two points, first being the crime of wilful entrapment and the second being is picking a purse up from someones garage grounds for a death sentence? And by the way you insist of avoiding these questions i think you know the answer, believe it or not it's common sense.

[Thin White Duke]

@ Thin White Duke:

A few years ago I was house sitting for my parents. I was up late watching a movie when I heard noises coming from outside. Hearing several voices, I grabbed a baseball bat that was in the closet and went to investigate. Turns out six or seven teenagers broke into my parents backyard and were cooling off from the hot summer night in my parents pool. According to your black-and-white perspective, wouldn't I then have the right to beat them down with my baseball bat? (I didn't, of course. I yelled at the kids to leave, giving them the opportunity, and they did).

According to your black and white perspective, It could aslo be a gang of cold blooded murderes and we wouldn't have to deal with your "waaah conservative America sucks" bullshit.

Run for president of the United States of ´Murica or move to another country.

[magisme]

And that's what happens when you have no argument.

[Thin White Duke]

No one said the guy is innocent of nothing.

I know, you're not saying nothing about him...thats the point.

No one said the guy is innocent of nothing.

I know, you're not saying nothing about him...thats the point.

What should I say? No one is defending him, therefore I don't have anything to discuss on that side. We ALL agree what he did is fucked up and wrong. However people are defending a fucking burglar as if it was baby Jesus and therefore I feel like saying my opinion.

[downzy]

@ Thin White Duke:

A few years ago I was house sitting for my parents. I was up late watching a movie when I heard noises coming from outside. Hearing several voices, I grabbed a baseball bat that was in the closet and went to investigate. Turns out six or seven teenagers broke into my parents backyard and were cooling off from the hot summer night in my parents pool. According to your black-and-white perspective, wouldn't I then have the right to beat them down with my baseball bat? (I didn't, of course. I yelled at the kids to leave, giving them the opportunity, and they did).

According to your black and white perspective, It could aslo be a gang of cold blooded murderes and we wouldn't have to deal with your "waaah conservative America sucks" bullshit.

Run for president of the United States of ´Murica or move to another country.

I guess that's a response. Not a very intelligent one, but a response.

So your thinking here is, rather than address the scenario I bring up, let's just wish death upon this guy because he stands against modern day conservatism found in the United States. Real mature.

[Thin White Duke]

And that's what happens when you have no argument.

I could always defend burglary saying the door was open. Now that's a great argument.

[magisme]

And that's what happens when you have no argument.

I could always defend burglary saying the door was open. Now that's a great argument.

Or you could grow a brain and realize no one is defending burglary.

[Guest Len B'stard]

No one said the guy is innocent of nothing.

I know, you're not saying nothing about him...thats the point.

No one said the guy is innocent of nothing.

I know, you're not saying nothing about him...thats the point.

What should I say? No one is defending him, therefore I don't have anything to discuss on that side. We ALL agree what he did is fucked up and wrong. However people are defending a fucking burglar as if it was baby Jesus and therefore I feel like saying my opinion.

Right, so you agree that his entrapment is the greater crime?

[Thin White Duke]

So your thinking here is, rather than address the scenario I bring up, let's just wish death upon this guy because he stands against modern day conservatism found in the United States. Real mature.

Oh please, no one wished death on anyone. I even agre with plenty of the stuff you normally address. I was just saying it was another possibility, wasn't it? You know what's mature? The Congress.

And that's what happens when you have no argument.

I could always defend burglary saying the door was open. Now that's a great argument.

Or you could grow a brain and realize no one is defending burglary.

Or you could grow a brain and realize no one is defending murder.

[magisme]

Putting words in peoples' mouths is your thing, huh?

[Thin White Duke]

Putting words in peoples' mouths is your thing, huh?

OUR thing.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Guest Len B'stard]

The way the law of entrapment works is that once it's clear someones been entrapped they are no longer committing a crime. If a cop sets some fucker up with a kilo of coke and it's found out that the persons been subject to entrapment, the copper gets sent down and the other guy gets off, the other persons crime is kinda nullified by virtue of the fact that he's been set up...and our evidence for that is the guy waiting to shoot the fucker.

In the simplest terms possible, there would've been no crime, whether purse taking or murder if the guy in the first instance hadn't've set it up to go down like that...which makes him the criminal, simple as that.

Edited May 6, 2014 by sugaraylen

[downzy]

The way the law of entrapment works is that once it's clear someones been entrapped they are no longer committing a crime. If a cop sets some fucker up with a kilo of coke and it's found out that the persons been subject to entrapment, the copper gets sent down and the other guy gets off, the other persons crime is kinda nullified by virtue of the fact that he's been set up...and our evidence for that is the guy waiting to shoot the fucker.

In the simplest terms possible, there would've been no crime, whether purse taking or murder if the guy in the first instance hadn't've set it up to go down like that...which makes him the criminal, simple as that.

Exactly. But rather than focus on the greater crime, others choose to focus on the b&e. But as you, others, and myself have tried to make painfully clear that the b&e does not justify murder, since the murder was partly caused by the initial entrapment.

Edited May 6, 2014 by downzy

[Thin White Duke]

Exactly. But rather than focus on the greater crime, others choose to focus on the b&e. But as you, others, and myself have tried to make painfully clear that the b&e does not justify murder, since the murder was partly caused by the initial entrapment.

More than fair enough. We all agree in this, don't we?

------

Another case, what would you think if a person broke into a house in the middle of the night that was open but just because the owner forgot to close the door; the owner wakes up, see the intruder and in panic kills the intruder?

[Guest Len B'stard]

More than fair enough. We all agree in this, don't we?

In constantly arguing about the opposing perspective and not addressing the greater crime it was difficult to ascertain exactly what you agreed on. Til this post.

Another case, what would you think if a person broke into a house in the middle of the night that was open but just because the owner forgot to close the door; the owner wakes up, see the intruder and in panic kills the intruder?

I'd think it was fucked up and unfortunate, it's depend a lot on the specific circumstances. At any rate it would be HUGELY more understandable than if the guy had arranged it to go down that way beforehand as an excuse to shoot em.

There was a case back here a few years ago where a farmer shot these two pikey lads that regularly burgled his house...the guy went to prison cuz he shot the guys as they were leaving and, by virtue of which, were not presenting a clear threat to him/ his life. His reasoning was it was dark and he was an old man and scared and shot out of fear for his life.

His name was Martin something or other.

Edited May 6, 2014 by sugaraylen

[downzy]

Exactly. But rather than focus on the greater crime, others choose to focus on the b&e. But as you, others, and myself have tried to make painfully clear that the b&e does not justify murder, since the murder was partly caused by the initial entrapment.

More than fair enough. We all agree in this, don't we?

------

Another case, what would you think if a person broke into a house in the middle of the night that was open but just because the owner forgot to close the door; the owner wakes up, see the intruder and in panic kills the intruder?

I think it goes to context. If you wake up with the intruder in your bedroom, I think it's appropriate to take any force necessary to get the person to leave your property. That means you're in your right to use any weapon to force the person to exit from your premises. You have to allow the intruder a chance to leave unharmed. If the intruder forfeits that opportunity, then any and all force is justified so long as your personal safety (and the safety of others) is not in jeopardy. Now, whether one can act rationally and calmly in that situation is another matter. But there are scenarios where I think even someone who is in a panic should be held accountable for their actions. If you seek out the intruder to cause harm and not allow the intruder to leave unharmed, then you should be held accountable. If you shoot the intruder in the back as he or she attempts to leave, then you should be held accountable. It all depends on the specifics of the situation. What shouldn't be allowed is an open cheque to do whatever you want because someone breaks into your harm.

[Thin White Duke]

In constantly arguing about the opposing perspective and not addressing the greater crime it was difficult to ascertain exactly what you agreed on. Til this post.

Probably my English doesn't allow me to explain mysefl properly but in no case I was saying what the guy did was correct. I was talking in general more than commenting on this specific case. My main point since the first moment is more of a common sense point. You know the law allows people to defend their property using force, you know plenty of Americans have an arsenal of weapons, you have no idea what kind of crazy people can live in a house, you know it's a crime to break into other people's houses. If you still decide to do it, and something goes wrong, you're the responsible of your acts. It's like if I jump to the river from 10m high, I don't know if there is a rock or the depth, so if I inury myself, it's my responsibility. It's a misfortune and everybody will think it was a misfortune, but I knew the risks and it's my fault.

We agree on that too, right?

[Guest Len B'stard]

We do, we do, we do And whats wrong with your English fella, it's fine. Shit, i thought you were English

[Thin White Duke]

I think it goes to context. If you wake up with the intruder in your bedroom, I think it's appropriate to take any force necessary to get the person to leave your property. That means you're in your right to use any weapon to force the person to exit from your premises. You have to allow the intruder a chance to leave unharmed. If the intruder forfeits that opportunity, then any and all force is justified so long as your personal safety (and the safety of others) is not in jeopardy. Now, whether one can act rationally and calmly in that situation is another matter. But there are scenarios where I think even someone who is in a panic should be held accountable for their actions. If you seek out the intruder to cause harm and not allow the intruder to leave unharmed, then you should be held accountable. If you shoot the intruder in the back as he or she attempts to leave, then you should be held accountable. It all depends on the specifics of the situation. What shouldn't be allowed is an open cheque to do whatever you want because someone breaks into your harm.

See, that's the thing. If you could weigh up and analyze the situation, the result could be pretty good and the minimum damage would be done. But, honestly, I don't think that idealistic situation happens very often. First, you don't expect to find someone on your living room at 3am, you get nervous and scared, so do the intruders, you can think in shooting his leg or something, but I guess they will move and it's difficult to point, you have your kids sleeping in their bedroom and you're afraid they can run towards there and harm them, etc... and you gotta weigh all that up in a matter of a few seconds. What I am trying to say, it's unrealistic to expect people to act calmly and coherent in such a shocking situation. Therefore we either forbid the right to defend your house for good and in all cases, or we allow it knowing sometimes things will go bad.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[downzy]

I think it goes to context. If you wake up with the intruder in your bedroom, I think it's appropriate to take any force necessary to get the person to leave your property. That means you're in your right to use any weapon to force the person to exit from your premises. You have to allow the intruder a chance to leave unharmed. If the intruder forfeits that opportunity, then any and all force is justified so long as your personal safety (and the safety of others) is not in jeopardy. Now, whether one can act rationally and calmly in that situation is another matter. But there are scenarios where I think even someone who is in a panic should be held accountable for their actions. If you seek out the intruder to cause harm and not allow the intruder to leave unharmed, then you should be held accountable. If you shoot the intruder in the back as he or she attempts to leave, then you should be held accountable. It all depends on the specifics of the situation. What shouldn't be allowed is an open cheque to do whatever you want because someone breaks into your harm.

See, that's the thing. If you could weigh up and analyze the situation, the result could be pretty good and the minimum damage would be done. But, honestly, I don't think that idealistic situation happens very often. First, you don't expect to find someone on your living room at 3am, you get nervous and scared, so do the intruders, you can think in shooting his leg or something, but I guess they will move and it's difficult to point, you have your kids sleeping in their bedroom and you're afraid they can run towards there and harm them, etc... and you gotta weigh all that up in a matter of a few seconds. What I am trying to say, it's unrealistic to expect people to act calmly and coherent in such a shocking situation. Therefore we either forbid the right to defend your house for good and in all cases, or we allow it knowing sometimes things will go bad.

No, it's not an all or nothing dichotomy. There are certain situations, like the one that started this thread (and the one that Len reported a few posts ago) where the right to defend one's property isn't limitless. You're not allowed to kill those who are in your house but attempting to flee. In most states you're not allowed to shoot an intruder in the back, giving them no chance to leave the premises. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Sure, emotions will be running high and bad decisions will be made. But not all bad decisions are the same. Being a little more proactive in the force being used isn't the same as using excessive force. Let's say you do shoot at the intruder and you take him out by the legs. Is it then justified then to shoot the intruder in the head because the homeowner is in a panic? Most prosecutors would say no, since the threat has no been neutralized.

So I don't think your generalization is the best way to look at it. It will always have to depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, the guy who shot the 17 year old German kid wouldn't be facing the charge of homicide; nor would the old guy in Minnesota be convicted of the same crime.

[shades]

You're not allowed to kill those who are in your house but attempting to flee.

really now?

interesting, and very liberal take on defending a "losers" right to be in my house.

My honest to God thoughts at the time would be to let him get just outside the door as to spare my carpet.