Mayan people have produced a new calendar (page 2) that continues for many
more years. I have three of them.
One of the better advertising gimmicks using Internet suckers from the 21st
century. It works and is a $billion (US) industry.
I frequent the place twice a year and hope I see the end staring there. I am
still waiting.
Perhaps some Jehovah Witnesses can shed some light on how their "end of the
world" is going??
--------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If you're talking about the Mayan calendar, I don't think their calendar
predicted the end of the world. I think they just ran out of room on the
stone.
We just didn't find page two.
----------
Mike Marlow wrote:
Yup it is - 'cause the whole damned earth is gonna blow up, or
disappear in a vapor, or sumptin' else, later this year. Just ask
the Myans. It's true - I read it on the internet...
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:55:16 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>>
>>>
>>> Now do you see the logic?
>>
>> No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
>> of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
>> misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
>>
>
>It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
>some way for being with him.
Being with someone is different than conspiring with someone.
Different logic.
Leon wrote:
>>
>
>
> You assume that they go in for drinks but your buddy is taking in a
> gun to even a score.
If I have no knowledge he had a gun, there's no foul. If I knew he had a
gun, but, again, had no information that he intended to use it in an illegal
manner, also no foul.
If I knew he had a gun and intended to shoot somebody and I went along to
try and dissuade that action, no foul.
If I knew in advance that my buddy intended to commit an illegal act and I
went along to assist in some way, I'm equally guilty of any offense my buddy
commits. My assistance can be quite passive, such as a look-out, driving the
getaway car, or anything tending to make a success of my buddy's escapade.
Let's take a simply example: If I hold the victim down while my buddy stabs
him 18 times thereby ending the victim's life, should I be responsible only
for simple assault? After all, I didn't do any stabbing.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:15:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
>of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
>you WERE guilty of "careless driving".
You are right, I was sick. But, I didn't know I was, which would have
exempted me from responsibility. Shortly after the accident, I went
into the hospital for fifteen months. According to my father who kept
getting the court dates pushed back because of the hospitalization,
the charges were eventually dismissed. The prosecutor assumed I was
still in the hospital for injuries I'd suffered from the car crash and
felt I'd "suffered enough". Funny how that worked out.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:17:15 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 1:47 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> In NY City a group of 5 is being held, because 1 of them shot and killed
>> a policeman who had cornered him in the residence. The rest were
>> lookouts and/or otherwise accomplices. They are all facing charges of
>> murder of some kind now, although only 1 of them did the deed. He was
>> arrested and let go in spite of a NC/SC arrest warrant, but the down
>> south authorities didn't want to come and get him. Apparently that was
>> enough reason to let him free, damn the judge involved. Oh, yes, the gun
>> used was an illegal weapon.
>
>I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>do see the stark difference?
>
>You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>
>Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>what should be the even hand of justice.
Shakespeare's Henry VI, part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
You said it, Dick!
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 1/6/2012 11:14 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:24:44 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men, one
>> wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
>> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>
> Hey Larry, I agree with you but I read it was 2 people - 2 ain't
> several :-).
2 can appear as several if you are cross eyed or drunk. ;~)
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if
>> I have to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops
>> have a gun that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred.
>> What difference does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether
>> the gun he uses can be traced?
>
> Seems to me it would make a definite difference to the prosecution of
> the ccriminal(s).
That of course, would be after he did his criminal act. So - your
registration would do nothing to make things better. As for a definite
difference in the prosecution, why is that not the case where registration
is already in place?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
>> rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
>> unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
>> millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
>> society.
>
> The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
> more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
> shading distinctions than serving the common good.
Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.
Probably.
Do you have an example?
m II wrote:
> Bullshit!
>
The one word you most frequently pull out of your limited vocabulary. Like
I said - consistency does have it's merits...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:54:20 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ... read
>>> the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand that this
>>> particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor does it fit with
>>> the crafted distinction in all States that have a felony murder statute.
>>>
>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>
>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>
>The prescribed punishment for what he confessed to, not a witch hunt
>punishment. If this liberal law and lawyers thought that they had half
>a chance of nailing the woman for the murder and not create public
>outrage the other idiot would probably be sentenced with 90 days of
>public service.
Free to go out and find another woman to rape in 3 months, eh?
That's an interesting sense of justice you have there, dude.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
Han wrote:
> I am getting rather (not sarcastic, I forget the word now) of what it
> really is that a court of law does. We have trial by jury because
> who can trust a judge appointed for life or chosen by the "people",
> who has to run soon again for reelection. Then we have trial lawyers
> who get paid by their client (either the perp or complainant, or the
> "people") and sometimes do an excellent and convincing job of
> twisting the jury's mind. Think about OJ. etc. etc.
Then again, there was the embarassing prosecution and police investigation.
I believe what "twisted the jury's mind" was more the ineptitude of the
prosecution process more than anything else.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote:
> A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
> tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
> He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
> testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to
> the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.
>
> Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
> logical enough to me.
Considering your previous illogical and totally irrelevant table saw
blade remark in this thread, your invoking the concept of "logic" in the
above can be safely ignored.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 1/7/2012 8:12 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>
>> Involuntary manslaughter.
>
> And if he was merely sitting in the getaway car? Illegal parking?
"If" pigs had wings, Bubba. Stick to the facts, you're starting to
dis-spell all previous indications that you might be smarter than you're
sounding lately.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
>> with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
>> paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>
> What's BATF?
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as the WACO
(We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
On 1/6/2012 8:55 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>> partner will
>>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was
>>>> killed?
>>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>>
>>> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a
>>> crime.
>>
>>
>> "If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
>>
>> Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
>>
>
> Got it.
>
> "I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot one
> of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a little
> action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always carry a
> hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS knife,
> not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me and
> that would ave been a bummer!"
Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
to and why isn't that person being charged too?
And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
that did not happen.
An another note, in Texas, many southern states, it is not unusual at
all to see one with a large hunting knife attached to his belt. AND
this is a more common site in trailer parks.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:07:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 9:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
>>> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
>>
>> In cases where it applies, yes.
>>
>> That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
>> and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios, to
>> bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.
>>
>
>Exactly! Lets not consider the actual facts and what actually happened.
>
>Lets imagine the worst and go for that.
Hey, this is USENET, not a court of law. Kangaroos are allowed.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
"Swingman" wrote ...
> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>
>>>
>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>
> Horseshit!
>
Agreed.
There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days earlier.
What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies if she did not
shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct prosecutor came after
her? Some self defense victims are ruined financially with having to defend
their actions. That would certainly be traumatic.
Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for 21
minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time protecting
her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot who lost it and
somebody died because they did not do the right thing and act in a manner
that protected life. She did the exact right thing. And for that, she
should be proud of herself. She was a mamma bear protecting her cub. I am
certain that any other kind of response (or non response) would be terribly
traumatic. Not only for her, but for every one who knew her. Again, she
did the right thing.
The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a woman. I
taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago. Long before it
became socially acceptable to do such things. There is tremendous pressure
on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight back, don't make a scene,
etc. Not only is this demeaning to women, but it is a green light to any
kind of whacko or criminal to prey on "helpless" women. Like the bumper
sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A .38".
Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted, I can
tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a victim.
The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who wanted to move
on and were willing to do whatever to see that this sort of thing never
occurred again. The other category was much more tragic. These poor women
basically crawled into a paranoid hole and never came out again. They
became recluses, depressed, etc. I think today, there would be more support
for them. But the fact is that a large number of victims never live normal
lives again.
Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply does not
compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a cornerstone of liberal
philosophy to create more victims and disarm the populace. Apparently
creating safe working conditions for criminals has a higher social purpose.
This woman did exactly the right thing. She should be commended and
rewarded in some fashion. Certainly she should be given some support of
some kind. If more women were like her, there would be less problems in
this country.
And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just use
them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign outside
of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty quickly. They take
the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It would be better for every
one to created DANGEROUS working conditions for criminals.
End of rant.
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Taking a human life is a horrible
-MIKE-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uh........................Not always.
Max, 1st Cavalry Division, Korea, Aug. 1950 - Aug. 1951.
On 1/5/2012 6:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:36 PM, Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>
>> Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
>> Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.
>
> What other time would have been better?
>
Never. Never would have been better.
"Mike Marlow" wrote
>
> Have not really thought this through, but I think at first blush I
> disagree Han. The dude that went in got what he deserved. The other guy
> did not and he should not be responsible for the fate of the first guy.
> Other charges? Sure. Attempted burlary or the likes would work for me.
> Other types of charges reflecting his actual participation? Sure. Just
> not sure I see the real logic in the murder (manslaughter?) charges.
>
<http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=741>
And a state by state look at the felony murder law...
<http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0087.htm>
On 01/06/2012 10:14 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:24:44 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men, one
>> wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
>> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>
> Hey Larry, I agree with you but I read it was 2 people - 2 ain't
> several :-).
sev·er·al
â â
adjective
1.
being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways
of doing it.
2.
respective; individual: They went their several ways.
3.
separate; different: several occasions.
4.
single; particular.
5.
Law . binding two or more persons who may be sued separately on a common
obligation.
noun
6.
several persons or things; a few; some.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 1/6/2012 12:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 06 Jan 2012 18:42:26 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-int
>>>>> ruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>
>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>>>
>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>
>>> Asshat lawyers ...
>>
>> I don't know. The guy knew that the lady was in her home alone, with a
>> baby. He and the dead dude were likely egging each other on, perhaps (as
>> it states) high on drugs, wanting more (money and/or drugs). Therefore,
>
> Um, she was a looker and the guy she shot had been stalking her that
> day. I think they wanted something other than money or drugs from her.
>
>
>> they were both committing a feloney, and the result was 1 dead dude. The
>> other should be charged with at least soomething, leading to the death of
>> the first one.
>
> It's common for all parties involved to be charged with conspiracy to
> murder when a death occurs during the commission of the crime. It
> isn't often -pursued-, though.
It's not conspiracy to commit murder, it's a crime known as "felony
murder." Most states have a criminal statute that says if a person is
killed during the commission of a felony, the death is classified as a
murder, and every person involved in committing the felony is guilty of
the murder.
> Yeah, the second guy needs to be punished for his involvement,
> but I'm not sure a murder rap is the correct punishment.
That's the risk a person takes when deciding to commit a felony.
On 01/06/2012 03:23 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Bill Gill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>
> Plus, having her husband die on xmas day, just a few days prior, she's
> going to be in therapy for a while, I expect (if she can afford it.)
>
> Having basically the whole country saying "well done", will probably help
> a bit.
>
Heard her on the news today - no therapy required. One squared away
tough lady.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 1/6/2012 6:36 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>
>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>
>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>> how can you say?
>>
>>
>
> Common sense.
>
> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
> out wearing a seat belt????
>
No. because (a) the two of you were not involved in the commission of a
felony, and (b) it was not reasonable foreseeable that your failure to
buckle up would kill anyone.
Now, if you were committing an armed robbery of a convenience store, and
the store clerk shot and killed your partner in crime, you convicted of
murder for the death of your partner. But for the chain of the events
resulting from your decision to commit a felony, no death would have
occurred, and it is reasonably foreseeable that your intended victim
might try to defend himself. Your intent to commit a felony transfers to
an intent to be responsible for the results, including someone's
potential death. There's no problem with holding you responsible for
the consequences of that decision.
On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>> partner will
>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>
>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>
>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>
>
> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a crime.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:37:32 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/8/2012 2:43 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:55:29 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/7/2012 5:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>> We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife
>>>> breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it?
>>>> Yes.
>>>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
>>>
>>> By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a
>>> violent physical or verbal attack.
>>
>> Holding a large knife while kicking your door in isn't violent or
>> physical? Wasn't he screaming at her to open the door, too? Add
>> verbal attack.
>
>I believe that you are introducing some fiction here.
Perhaps, but have you ever seen a wild, drugged-out idiot kicking a
door down -without- screaming?
>>> The sheep no longer have common sense and go along with what they are
>>> told.
>>
>> That's half the reason the U.S. is in all these messes today.
>
>Yes, the attorneys have twisted the meaning of everything to fit their
>needs.
<insert Shakespeare reference here>
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>> partner will
>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>
>> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a crime.
>
>
> "If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
>
> Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
>
Got it.
"I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot
one of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a
little action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always
carry a hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS
knife, not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me
and that would ave been a bummer!"
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 01/06/2012 07:58 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 1/6/2012 4:52 PM, Morgans wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote
>> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
>>
>> Yep. A Stevens savage pump 12 gauge. Stored with trigger lock key handy
>> and loaded.
>>
>> -- Jim in NC
>>
>>
>
> Amateur
> ================================================================
> Got to say though that if one was to have only one gun, you can't do
> better than a shotgun. Self defense, small game, big game. It'll do it
> all. Doesn't lend itself to pocket carry, though.
The Taurus Judge - .410 shotgun and .45 rounds in a revolver. Load up a
couple of snake shots followed by some .45 rounds in case the snake
shots fail to convince the snake you really don't want his company.
- Doug
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 01/06/2012 08:05 PM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> <g> OK, you understand that the criminals don't do that, so what
>> difference will gun registration make, Han? Why is that such a good
>> idea to you? I don't understand that. It only penalizes the GOOD
>> guys.
>
> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still, why
> make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
>
The law has no meaning to criminals. They don't register their firearms.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Mike M" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with
ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then
shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you
have to protect yourself I'll reconsider.
Mike M
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away.
Max
On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>> partner will
>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>
>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>
>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>
>>
>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>
> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a crime.
"If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
m II wrote:
> I learned it from you, the master of Bullshit!
>
> Mirrors are a bitch.
>
Oh come on... you can do better than that - can't you? Keep trying...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:48:09 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>> the young woman.
>>>
>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>
>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>
>A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
>tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
>He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
>testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to
>the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.
>
>Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
>logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
>evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
>in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.
>
>
>:wq
>
One word - INTENT.
If the intent was to kill the guy, it's the same as breaking i to the
trailer if the guy dies breaking in.
A more likely charge in the cliff incident would be manslaughter or
criminal negligence causing death.
>
>
>
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:21:07 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 9:06 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:27:37 +0000 (UTC),
>> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>>
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>>>>>> loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>>>>>> door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>>>>>> neighbor across the street.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>>>>>> in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
>>>> walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
>>>> about it. I have ...
>>
>> They would have found a locked safe and left. And if you walked in
>> and they wanted you to open it, you'd say "It's my wife's safe. I
>> don't know the combo." Right?
>
>Then they shoot you for being a wuss.
Damn, I just knew that was too easy.
>Easy to speculate how you would react when it has not happened to you
>personally.
Verily.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
m II wrote:
> Well demonstrated USanian ignorance Mikey!!
>
> Perfect!
>
> Thanks
>
At least you offer up no surprises. You are a complete ass every time you
post, and consistency does have its own merit...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Rather than "we" speak of her being traumatized (and hence, giving her
the sense or idea that she should be), the general populace should be
speaking of her (and, hence, giving to her the sense of) being proud
of herself and be emotionally elevated, in the best way (exactlty the
opposite of traumatized), that she did what she did. Lets not just
offer her a dollar reward (material gain), but give her a mental gain,
also, ie., it's the right thing to do, so be glad. Screw the trauma
idea, in every way.
Sonny
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 8:55 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>> partner will
>>>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was
>>>>> killed?
>>>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>>>
>>>> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a
>>>> crime.
>>>
>>>
>>> "If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
>>>
>>> Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
>>>
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>> "I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot one
>> of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a little
>> action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always carry a
>> hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS knife,
>> not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me and
>> that would ave been a bummer!"
>
>
>Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
>stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
>charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
>murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
>felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
>murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
>to and why isn't that person being charged too?
>
>And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
>lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
>there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
>a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
>do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
>other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
>There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
>rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
>with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
>buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
>that did not happen.
>
Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.
>
>An another note, in Texas, many southern states, it is not unusual at
>all to see one with a large hunting knife attached to his belt. AND
>this is a more common site in trailer parks.
>
>
>
>
>
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked
>>> and loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked
>>> in the door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used
>>> to rape my neighbor across the street.
>>>
>>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've
>>> lived in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>>
>> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
>
> Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
> walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ...
> think about it. I have ...
Why are you walking around unarmed? That's plain idiotic.
Many years ago, I DID walk in to my home, with my 9-year old daughter in
tow, to surprise a burglar! He bolted for his entrance, a back bedroom
window he had smashed, me in pursuit. I had my .45 out ready to cancel his
ticket, but, unfortunately, he slammed the bedroom door as he passed. The
door was locked and it took me precious seconds to get it open.
Fucker escaped.
BUT, had HE been armed and I *NOT* and had the burglar made a stand to turn
a burglary into a robbery, or worse, I, and maybe my daughter, would have
been even more victimized.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:45:49 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>complicity is pretty easy to establish.
>>Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.
>
>I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
>the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
>Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
>finding.
>
>I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
>a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
>not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
>the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
>me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
>just one method they use to find more information.
And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
you WERE guilty of "careless driving".
Depending on the circumstances, the charge would LIKELY be dismissed,
and if not you would quite LIKELY be found not guilty - but by the
letter of the law - if you were sick when you got behind the wheel,
you WERE guilty of the charge. That's just the way the law works.
Due care and attention would preclude you from driving if you knew you
were not physically and mentally up to the task, or if you reasonably
should have known.
That is up to the court to decide from the evidence brought forward
IF it gets to trial.
Leon wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 6:52 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was
>>>>>> armed with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of
>>>>>> those paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's BATF?
>>>>
>>>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>>>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually in Waco, Texas, it is the TABC. Tobacco, Alcohol, and
>>> Beverage, Commission. IIRC there is no Bureau.
>>
>> Both Waco and Ruby Ridge were Federal involvement - BATF.
>>
>
>
>
> I stand corrected. I was thinking Texas authority only.
Nah - the Feds can't resist crashing a good party...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 07 Jan 2012 14:47:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
>>>>>>> ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
>>>>>>> commonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
>>>>>> someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
>>>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
>>>>> read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
>>>>> that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
>>>>> does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
>>>>> felony murder statute.
>>>>>
>>>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>>>
>>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>>
>>>Involuntary manslaughter.
>>
>> Works for me.
>>
>
>That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
>I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.
You might be right. Perhaps the OK DA/judge/jury will find the truth
and act accordingly.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:36:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>
>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>
>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>> how can you say?
>
>Common sense.
>
>You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>out wearing a seat belt????
>
>Now do you see the logic?
The last I heard, running a light isn't a felony.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>
>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>
>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>
>Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ... read
>the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand that this
>particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor does it fit with
>the crafted distinction in all States that have a felony murder statute.
>
>What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>
>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>
> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ... read
the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand that this
particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor does it fit with
the crafted distinction in all States that have a felony murder statute.
What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 05 Jan 2012 22:31:46 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
>>> licensing people for the use of them.
>>>
>>> This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
>>> prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
>>> has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
>>> must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
>>> didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
>>> and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
>>> she can.
>>
>> Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
>> jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless
>> she was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She
>> would not be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the
>> actions of the squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he
>> could just as easily been inclined to merely rape her. She didn't
>> know, hence she was guilty of at least manslaughter.
>
>I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed under
>real imminent threat of being harmed,
Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men,
one wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>and I did live in Mass. when there
>was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a home invasion,
>and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was acquitted, I
>believe, because there was no secondary exit through which she could have
>fled. Had there been another exit from the basement, she should have
>used that.
So his (possible) accomplice could have caught her instead? Right.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 18:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:29:27 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Recall the gal in Oklahoma who recently blew away a berserker breaking
>> into her house? The one where the 911 dispatcher said "... do what you
>> have to do..."?
>>
>> It took the cops TWENTY-ONE MINUTES to respond!. To a home invasion in
>> progress.
>
>The courts have held that police have no responsibility to prevent
>crimes. It could be that that extends to responding to a crime in
>progress in a timely manner, but I'm guessing.
Which means the Castle Doctrine should be embraced by all states and
DAs.
>Their primary responsibility is capturing a perpetrator *after* a crime
>has been committed.
>
>Preventing a crime appears to have been left up to us the citizens, but
>of course, with rare exceptions, we're not allowed to harm a criminal to
>do so.
Liberal Logic. Go figure.
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
Josepi wrote:
> The police are "minutes away" due to responding to so many other
> calls due to gun owners running around scared and acting
> irresponsibly.
> "Gun controls" could speed up their responses.
>
And your reasons for believing thus?
I used to be a cop. I'd hear maybe one call a week involving the discharging
of a firearm. This observation was admittedly apocryphal, so I'd be happy to
study your collection of objective evidence.
On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>> the young woman.
>
> Better check your definitions.
>
> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>
>
I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>> do see the stark difference?
>>
>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>
> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
> how can you say?
>
>
Common sense.
You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
out wearing a seat belt????
Now do you see the logic?
I understand that those "drug legal areas" have been rescinded and no longer
exist in the last few years.
--------------
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I was born in Holland, so follow with some interest the Amsterdam
experiences. It does turn out only semi-beneficial to allow low-level
drugs. One bad aspect is the riffraff drugtourists coming in. That
causes troubles in tourist areas (not only Amsterdam). Another is the
"gateway" to small-time and not so smalltime transgressions of the law in
other areas, hard(er) drugs, prostitution and human trafficking. So I
haven't reall formed a hard opinion, but I think that somewhere there
should be a definite and definitive border beyond which it is a real bad
crime. But, yes, it would likely be beneficial to drug users and society
as a whole if personal drug use would be allowed, and somehow regulated
and taxed.
YMMV!
-MIKE- wrote:
>
> No Max, it's always horrible. Even though it is often justified,
> valiant, heroic, and wise, anytime man is forced to play God in
> deciding when another life shall end, it is also tragic.
>
Taking a human life can be many things.
Certainly "horrible" is one. In my case, however, it was extremely
gratifying. And a relief.
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
In NY City a group of 5 is being held, because 1 of them shot and killed
a policeman who had cornered him in the residence. The rest were
lookouts and/or otherwise accomplices. They are all facing charges of
murder of some kind now, although only 1 of them did the deed. He was
arrested and let go in spite of a NC/SC arrest warrant, but the down
south authorities didn't want to come and get him. Apparently that was
enough reason to let him free, damn the judge involved. Oh, yes, the gun
used was an illegal weapon.
==============================================================
You mean that the criminal didn't go down to a gun shop, fill out the
paperwork, wait several days, have a criminal background check done, then
come back and pick up his gun so he could go out and commit a crime? Damn
criminals, you pass all these laws and they still don't do it right.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:56:22 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>information goes a long way to fight this trafficing, and that's the point I
>contest. That's the feel good hope of programs like registration, but the
>problem is that it's only feel good.
Registration promotes responsibility. Before I bought my first hand
gun, I had to go through some form of training, belong to a gun club
and wait a specific period before getting my first gun. I didn't want
to jeopardize my gun ownership, so I was careful to adhere to my
responsibilities. That's just the start. There are other advantages.
If you want to label registration as a feel good endeavor, that's
entirely your prerogative. I see it as more than that. My prerogative.
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:05:11 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
PDFTFT, Ed.
--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein
On 1/7/2012 7:54 AM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 4:44 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>> Can't speak about a home invasion, but I personally have experienced, in
>>> a large eastern center-city neighborhood, police no-show to a 911 call for
>>> firearms being discharged on the street outside my (former) home.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Good thing no one killed, having personally experienced that crime you
>> would have been lawfully charged with murder.
>
> Now that's funny!
>
>
Equally funny as the guy in Oklahoma being charged for something that
did not happen.
On 1/7/2012 8:56 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 9:01 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> lots of snippage
>>>
>>>> OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe
>>>> that this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that
>>>> go with it.
>>>>
>>>> I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed
>>>> while committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder.
>>>> If you were not there, there would be no murder. Your being there
>>>> and him being killed as a result of self defense does not make you a
>>>> murderer.
>>>
>>> Even in a liberal state (I think) like New York, they are charging
>>> the 4 friends of the perp who killed a policeman during the
>>> commission of a burglary with murder of some kind. They were active
>>> participants in the robbery, not just lookouts. Slightly, but
>>> perhaps significantly different. sorry for the wrap
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/nyregion/at-scene-of-brooklyn-robbe
>>> ry-
>>> a-police-dept-veteran-is-fatally-shot.html?scp=5&sq=figoski&st=cse>
>>> or
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7dmxywd
>>>
>>>> You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun
>>>> with out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight
>>>> pulls his gun but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are
>>>> charged with felony murder. Does that sound about right?
>>>
>>> This is different. The 2 go into the bar to have drinks, not to have
>>> a fight.
>>
>> You assume that they go in for drinks but your buddy is taking in a
>> gun to even a score.
>
> Well, I wouldn't take a gun anywhere<grin>. And I certainly wouldn't go
> with someone who is carrying a gun into any kind of drinking
> establishment. But now you are supposing guy #2 knew that guy #1 was
> carrying. Maybe yes, maybe no. Moreover, I don't know how excitable the
> guys are/were.
>
> I thought they were just some drinking buddies who are/were generally
> peacable. But then, I like to be optimistic about peoples intentions.
> Which, my ultra-right wing buddie says, is just plain wrong.
>
I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is suppose to
only use actual facts.
On 1/7/2012 9:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 7:27 AM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked
>>>>> and
>>>>> loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>>>>> door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>>>>> neighbor across the street.
>>>>>
>>>>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've
>>>>> lived
>>>>> in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
>>>
>>> Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
>>> walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
>>> about it. I have ...
>>
>>
>> Maybe you should take the blade off of your table saw too...
>
> What an asinine, thoughtless, irrelevant statement.
>
> Just the thought of what could happen were your wife and daughter to
> walk into that kind of situation obviously goes right over your head, eh?
>
> On second thought, add "stupid" to the first sentence ...
Desperation for a come back leads to stupid comments.
On 1/7/2012 9:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:52 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>
>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>>
>>>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>>>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>>>
>>> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
>>> robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
>>> is shot and killed.
>>>
>>> Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
>>> you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
>>> even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
>>> with the engine running.
>>>
>>> The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
>>> committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
>>> act that any member undertakes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
>> deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
>> go to jail responsible for his death.
>
> That's where the law can fall down. It leaves it up to the DA whether
> or not to prosecute the driver as a getaway conspirator or just let
> him go as an unsuspecting friend.
>
> In places like Gnu Yawk Shitty, with foaming-at-the-mouth liberals
> like Bloomberg and his pet DA, you're hung before you're arrested.
Now you are seeing the light, I think. ;~) We would like for the other
guy to get the worse punishment, that would make us all feel good. But
not actually knowing all the facts does he really deserve it?
On 1/7/2012 9:31 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:55:16 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>>>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>>>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now do you see the logic?
>>>
>>> No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
>>> of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
>>> misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
>>>
>>
>> It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
>> some way for being with him.
>
> Being with someone is different than conspiring with someone.
> Different logic.
Totally agree. But it is only speculative that there was a conspiracy
of what may have happened with the woman and her child. Fortunately she
made sure that we could only speculate and probably saved the other guy
in the yard from more serious charges.
On 1/7/2012 9:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 07 Jan 2012 14:47:05 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
>>>>>>>> ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
>>>>>>>> commonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
>>>>>>> someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
>>>>>> read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
>>>>>> that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
>>>>>> does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
>>>>>> felony murder statute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>>>
>>>> Involuntary manslaughter.
>>>
>>> Works for me.
>>>
>>
>> That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
>> I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.
>
> You might be right. Perhaps the OK DA/judge/jury will find the truth
> and act accordingly.
Exactly and throw the case out because there was no murder. And
accordingly remind the prosecuting attorney that you can not win on a
charge that does not fit the crime.
On 1/7/2012 8:47 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
>>>>>>> ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
>>>>>>> commonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
>>>>>> someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
>>>>>> case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
>>>>> read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
>>>>> that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
>>>>> does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
>>>>> felony murder statute.
>>>>>
>>>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>>>
>>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>>
>>> Involuntary manslaughter.
>>
>> Works for me.
>>
>
> That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
> I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.
Who was murdered? If a police officer shoots a bank robber inside the
bank are the customers that may have spoken to the robber, before he
pulled out his gun, accessories to the murder?
Until we actually know the facts lets not guess at what did or may have
happened.
On 1/7/2012 9:06 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:27:37 +0000 (UTC),
> [email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>>>>> loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>>>>> door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>>>>> neighbor across the street.
>>>>>
>>>>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>>>>> in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
>>>
>>> Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
>>> walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
>>> about it. I have ...
>
> They would have found a locked safe and left. And if you walked in
> and they wanted you to open it, you'd say "It's my wife's safe. I
> don't know the combo." Right?
Then they shoot you for being a wuss.
Easy to speculate how you would react when it has not happened to you
personally.
On 1/7/2012 8:48 AM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>>
>>> Involuntary manslaughter.
>>
>> And if he was merely sitting in the getaway car? Illegal parking?
>
> If they planned to do a burglary or rape the woman, it is still felony
> murder for the waiting driver. Perhaps not the maximum sentence.
>
> Think of the deterrrence value of it.
>
There is that word IF again. If it actually happened then yes the out
side guy should be charged with the crime that actually happened.
Because one one was actually murdered he should not be brought up on
murder charges.
On 1/7/2012 9:38 AM, Leon wrote:
> He should be charged for something but certainly not felony murder. Had
> his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to felony murder. If
> he is being charged as an accessory to a felony murder, who actually
> committed the felony murder that he is an accessory to and why isn't
> that person being charged too?
A perfect example of the common law concept of "legal fiction":
... a legal device assuming something is true that is clearly false ...
Another example is the asinine "legal fiction" in the US that a
corporation is a "person".
The legal concept of "legal fiction" is why corporations can commit
criminal acts and be fined instead of a real "person" in the corporation
going to jail for the criminal act, as Pfizer's $2.3 Billion fine for
fraud and other crimes.
Another blurring of the distinction by the legal establishment between
what is legal, and the concepts of what is moral, ethical, right, fair,
etc. ... a device that will eventually bring capitalism to its knees.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Han wrote:
>>
>> What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if
>> I have to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops
>> have a gun that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred.
>> What difference does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether
>> the gun he uses can be traced?
>
> Seems to me it would make a definite difference to the prosecution of
> the ccriminal(s).
Absolutely no difference at all. The perp is a criminal because he used a
gun. The provenance of the gun is completely irrelevant to his crime.
>>
>> No, the goblin didn't get any guns from me. He was apparently just
>> beginning his squit-eyed actions.
>
> Good for you. I hope things are well locked up in your house now.
Uh, no. They are concealed. The squint would have to tear up the house to
find them while I can put my hands on one in mere seconds.
>
>> You had better check your facts: Most guns used in crime, so far as
>> authorities know, are NOT committed with stolen guns.
>
> Illegal guns then.
>
>> Believe me, every time authorities find a gun that has moved
>> illegally in commerce, those responsible are punished. Except for
>> those thousands of guns whose dodgy sales were sanctioned by the
>> BATF. Most went to drug cartels in Mexico (a good thing) but some
>> ended up on this side of the border where they contributed to the
>> mayhem.
>
> It amazes me that now you seem to imply that BATF should be more
> empowered, but that would be GOOD in my opinion, at least if they get
> the deadbrains out of the line of command.
Huh? I hold the BATF should be ABOLISHED. Root & branch. Cremated and the
ashes scattered. Take no chances is my motto.
>
>>> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
>>> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
>>> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
>>
>> We have the highest percentage of incarceration because we want to
>> keep the crime rate as low as possible. There is an obvious and
>> dramatic inverse relationship between crime and incarceration. This
>> doesn't prove causality, of course, but it's a good indicator to most
>> folks.
>
> My train of thought is - more poor and desperate people - easy drug
> use - more criminality - more incarceration. But then, that's
> another train of thought.
So we lock up those tempted, or driven, to illegality. Same result: less
crime.
On 1/6/2012 6:52 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was
>>>>> armed with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of
>>>>> those paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>>>>
>>>> What's BATF?
>>>
>>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually in Waco, Texas, it is the TABC. Tobacco, Alcohol, and
>> Beverage, Commission. IIRC there is no Bureau.
>
> Both Waco and Ruby Ridge were Federal involvement - BATF.
>
I stand corrected. I was thinking Texas authority only.
On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>>
>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>> do see the stark difference?
>>
>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>
>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>
> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
> robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
> is shot and killed.
I thought you were smarter than that. The scenario you propose, and what
happened in the situation I was remarking upon, are totally different.
AAMOF, I CLEARLY stated that. Learn to read ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 1/6/2012 4:26 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> It's not conspiracy to commit murder, it's a crime known as "felony
>> murder." Most states have a criminal statute that says if a person is
>> killed during the commission of a felony, the death is classified as a
>> murder, and every person involved in committing the felony is guilty
>> of the murder.
>>
>>> Yeah, the second guy needs to be punished for his involvement,
>>> but I'm not sure a murder rap is the correct punishment.
>>
>> That's the risk a person takes when deciding to commit a felony.
>
> Good explanation. Let me expand it a bit:
>
> A homicide (killing of one person by the actions of another) occurs during
> the commission of a felony, the homicide is Felony Murder. All individuals
> involved in the original felony are guilty of the crime. Note that the
> person committing the homicide need not be the felon (as it was in this
> case). In the extreme, during a riot, if a homicide occurs, ALL involved in
> the riot are guilty of murder.
>
> We had a case in my town, May 15-16, 1967, where 489 people were initially
> charged with capital murder (killing of a police officer).
That that last sentence is what is wrong with that kind of mentality of
the law makers.
On 1/6/2012 5:19 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:21:17 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 9:39 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-
> intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner
>>>> will
>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>
>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>
>>> Asshat lawyers ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No murder
>> was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to pay for
>> killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on the young
>> woman.
>
> Leon, I hope you read the responses explaining what felony murder is.
> You may not agree with it, but that's the law. You wanna' commit a
> felony? Them's the risks you take.
>
I understand it is law in some places, makes the same sense as it being
unlawful to drive a car "with" a windshield.
Lets say you don't want to commit a felony murder but your buddy goes
nuts and gets killed. That is the risk with going out with a friend
with laws like this.
On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>
>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>
> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>
Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
Standing out side is not a crime is it?
Bill Gill wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>
Bah! Killing people in self-defense is a mind-altering, but satisfying,
life event.
Shooting team interviewer: "So, then, officer your statement is 'The suspect
raced down the hallway with me in pursuit. He turned into a bedroom and from
a lower drawer on the dresser pulled a large-caliber weapon and pointed it
in my direction. I, in fear of my life, discharged my service weapon.' Is
that a fair and accurate summary of the events you experienced?"
Cop: "Exactly. Like I said: He went for his piece and I smoked him!"
On 1/5/2012 8:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>
>> Horseshit!
>
> 1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?
Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
>>> with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
>>> paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>>
>> What's BATF?
>
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as the WACO
> (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>
>
>
Actually in Waco, Texas, it is the TABC. Tobacco, Alcohol, and
Beverage, Commission. IIRC there is no Bureau.
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder rule. That
> you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's unfair is at variance
> with the greatest legal minds of almost a millennia, indeed, your position
> is the opposite of a civilized society.
The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
shading distinctions than serving the common good.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Leon wrote:
>>
>> No you don't. We have a teaching moment here; The basic theory of
>> criminal law is that every offence is predicated on the state of
>> mind of the accused. In the example you posit, there is no "mens
>> rea", or guilty mind. Without the requisite criminal (or negligent)
>> intent, there is no crime. Period. End of story. The driver must
>> have known, or should have known, that a robbery was planned before
>> any sanction can attach. Mere presence is not enough because, as you
>> proposed, the presence was entirely innocent.
> Same applies for the guy standing out side until we learn, at the
> beginning of this thread it was not known, what he confessed to.
As an ex-cop, I can assure you he confessed.
Cops probably said (after a Miranda warning), "We're just trying to figure
out what happened here. Nobody got robbed. Nobody got raped. You didn't do
anything wrong. Now the way I see it, Albert wanted to rape that woman and
he and you went over there so he could get his rocks off, right? I mean you
had no intention of robbing or raping anybody, so you're in the clear. But
isn't that the way it went down?"
NB: It is not against the law for a cop to lie to a suspect.
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
And if he's outside - drag him inside!
===========================================================
I hope you're joking.
On 1/7/2012 8:28 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but
>>>> you do see the stark difference?
>>>>
>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>>
>>>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>>>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>>>
>>> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do
>>> the robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the
>>> robbery, a teller is shot and killed.
>>>
>>> Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with
>>> double-parking? No, you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But
>>> HE didn't rob anybody or even attempt to do so! He was merely
>>> sitting in the car outside the bank with the engine running.
>>>
>>> The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
>>> committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible
>>> for any act that any member undertakes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make
>> a deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
>> go to jail responsible for his death.
>
> No you don't. We have a teaching moment here; The basic theory of criminal
> law is that every offence is predicated on the state of mind of the accused.
> In the example you posit, there is no "mens rea", or guilty mind. Without
> the requisite criminal (or negligent) intent, there is no crime. Period. End
> of story. The driver must have known, or should have known, that a robbery
> was planned before any sanction can attach. Mere presence is not enough
> because, as you proposed, the presence was entirely innocent.
>
>
Same applies for the guy standing out side until we learn, at the
beginning of this thread it was not known, what he confessed to.
On 1/7/2012 8:17 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> Common sense.
>>
>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding
>> with out wearing a seat belt????
>>
>>
>> Now do you see the logic?
>
> No, I don't see the logic, nor, evidently, do you.
>
> A passenger in a car is not a participant in any offense in which the driver
> partakes.
>
> Take it further: You are a passenger in a car. Your buddy, the driver, gets
> incensed over the actions of another driver, pulls up beside the other
> driver, and, through the open window, shoots the other driver dead. Are you
> in any way guilty of anything? Of course not.
Same thing with the buddy standing out side.
On 1/7/2012 9:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>>>> the young woman.
>>>>>
>>>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>>>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>>>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>>>
>>> A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
>>> tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
>>> He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
>>> testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to
>>> the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.
>>>
>>> Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
>>> logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
>>> evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
>>> in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.
>>
>> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
>> wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a piss.
>> Hey dude! Why are you kicking in your door??? BANG? The friend is
>> dead and you are up for murder.
>
> Again, that will be for the jury to decide, not rec.woodworking.
>
If it makes it to court at all. More than likely it will be thrown out
if felony murder charges are brought up.
On 1/8/2012 9:18 AM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that
>>> illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its
>>> owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through
>>> a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has
>>> an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who
>>> "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
>>
>> Oh - pure bullshit. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For
>> christ's sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It
>> gets stolen. What freakin' good is your almighty registration? Do you
>> even think before you write this stuff? The real world is about more
>> than your feel good crap. Sorry - but this brain dead line of thought
>> really hits a nerve.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but,
>>> using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy
>>> whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if
>>> so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is
>>> generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the
>>> "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that
>>> brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help
>>> at least somewhat.
>>>
>>
>> You are a dreamer. Do you really even understand where illegal guns
>> come from? Do you really believe they all come from traceable
>> sources? Do you really believe the capacity even exists to actually
>> trace these things? Have you thought this out at all?
>>
>>
>>> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
>>> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
>>> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
>>
>> Oh... that would be a thread, wouldn't it? You're just feeling wicked
>> tonight aren't you...?
>
> Are you saying that trafficking in stolen guns is so well established
> that we really shouldn't consider it illegal anymore? Your trains of
> thought are insane, IMNSHO. Of course, I admit that you think otherwise.
>
Consider that guns have been being registered in some form for many
years. Now consider the fact that many people still think that
registration should implemented. Now consider that nothing has improved.
On 1/7/2012 8:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
>>> of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
>>> misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
>>>
>>
>> It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
>> some way for being with him.
>
> That has to be the most idiotic statement I've heard in the last hour.
>
>
Now you know how I feel about the guy that was standing out side and be
charged for something that did not happen.
On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> If they planned to do a burglary or rape the woman, it is still
>>> felony murder for the waiting driver. Perhaps not the maximum
>>> sentence. Think of the deterrrence value of it.
>>>
>>
>> There is that word IF again. If it actually happened then yes the out
>> side guy should be charged with the crime that actually happened.
>> Because one one was actually murdered he should not be brought up on
>> murder charges.
>
> No, "if" about it. Gomer #2 participated in the planning and execution of
> the crime.
>
> Gomer #2 HAS been charged with murder.
>
> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder rule. That
> you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's unfair is at variance
> with the greatest legal minds of almost a millennia, indeed, your position
> is the opposite of a civilized society.
>
>
No, my mind set is not to go with the lench mob mentality.
On 1/8/2012 8:48 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 9:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>>>>> the young woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>>>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide
>>>>>> committed during
>>>>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the
>>>>>> homicide need not
>>>>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>>>>
>>>> A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
>>>> tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
>>>> He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
>>>> testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied
>>>> as to
>>>> the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.
>>>>
>>>> Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
>>>> logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
>>>> evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
>>>> in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.
>>>
>>> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
>>> wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a piss.
>>> Hey dude! Why are you kicking in your door??? BANG? The friend is
>>> dead and you are up for murder.
>>
>> Again, that will be for the jury to decide, not rec.woodworking.
>>
>
> If it makes it to court at all. More than likely it will be thrown out
> if felony murder charges are brought up.
And we'll never know the outcome, because in a few days, it'll be some
other earth shaking "breaking news" to distract the media and all will
be forgotten about this incident. (i've forgotten most of it already if
it weren't for this thread). Anyone remember when we were all gonna be
killed by anthrax or the bird flue? How about H1N1? That ring a bell?
It's all bullshit.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
Bullshit!
--------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
At least you offer up no surprises. You are a complete ass every time
you
post, and consistency does have its own merit...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Leon wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 9:31 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:55:16 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets
>>>>> hit and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were
>>>>> riding with out wearing a seat belt????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now do you see the logic?
>>>>
>>>> No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific
>>>> laws of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not
>>>> even a misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished
>>> in some way for being with him.
>>
>> Being with someone is different than conspiring with someone.
>> Different logic.
>
> Totally agree. But it is only speculative that there was a
> conspiracy of what may have happened with the woman and her child.
> Fortunately she made sure that we could only speculate and probably
> saved the other guy in the yard from more serious charges.
Giggle.
"However, prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old
Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities,
Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the
gunshots.
" 'When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death
results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for
it,' [Assistant District Attorney] Walters said."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/nation/teen-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-after-911teen-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-after-911-operator-2081571.html?cxtype=rss_news
On 1/7/2012 9:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
>> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
>
> In cases where it applies, yes.
>
> That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
> and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios, to
> bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.
>
Exactly! Lets not consider the actual facts and what actually happened.
Lets imagine the worst and go for that.
On 1/7/2012 9:46 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:14:00 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:40:23 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>>>> the young woman.
>>>>>
>>>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>>>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>>>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>>>
>>>> I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>>>
>>> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
>>> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
>>
>> I think he should be prosecuted for assisted burglary, not felony murder.
>
> What about the rape? Is there any doubt in your mind that if she had
> -not- stopped them, they both would have raped her, then possibly
> killed both her and the baby?
What rape??????????????? You have been watching way too much TV.
Your run a red light in your car. The officer and ride along district
attorney charge you with murder. Is there any doubt that running that
light was intentional so that you could hit the other car and kill all
the occupants?
>
> The problem is that now he'll go to jail, spend time with much more
> hardened criminals, and learn how to do things right the next time.
> <sigh>
>
> Too bad she didn't have slugs and the guys were stacked up in the
> doorway. It would have made things much simpler.
>
> --
> Worry is a misuse of imagination.
> -- Dan Zadra
On 1/6/2012 10:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:50:27 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>
>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>
>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>
>>
>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>
> If she hadn't been armed, what do you suppose would have happened to
> her and/or the baby? Wouldn't she have been gang raped and
> burglarized, at the very least?
>
> Crimes:
> stalking
> breaking and entering with intent to rape
> attempted burglary
> Conspiracy to rape
> Conspiracy to breaking and entering
> Conspiracy to burglary
I am talking about the guy standing out side waiting on his buddy not
the guy that actually broke in. AND seriously the lady was scared that
any of those things could have happened but we will never know what may
have happened since nothing happened after she shot the guy. Hos only
crime was breaking and entering. That is where it stops. You cannot
continue to trump up, what could have happened, charges.
>
> Find a speaking weasel. He'll put those into actual legal terms for
> ya, bud.
>
> These two were, in all probability, bad, bad men.
Key word there, probability, not absolute. And thank goodness in this
country we get a trial by jury rather than a shoot from the hip mob.
AGAIN I am not defending the other guy simply stating that he is not
liable for charges of something that did not happen.
>
> Leon, what would you do if you were an American soldier driving down a
> road in Afghanistan and you saw an Arab standing there with an RPG,
> looking right at you after his buddy shot his RPG?
> Standing by the road isn't a crime, is it?
I suspect that the Arab was shooting the RPG at the Taliban. IIRC we
are not at war with the people of Western Asia or Northern Africa. I
believe an Arab would be an ally. If he were not shooting at me I would
asses the situation and probably continue on.
What would you have done? Would have shot them cause the only good
foreigner is a dead foreigner?
Do you see how actual details and facts make thing look differently?
>
> --
> Worry is a misuse of imagination.
> -- Dan Zadra
On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>> the young woman.
>>>
>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>
>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>
> A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
> tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
> He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
> testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to
> the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.
>
> Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
> logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
> evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
> in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.
Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a piss.
Hey dude! Why are you kicking in your door??? BANG? The friend is
dead and you are up for murder.
On 1/7/2012 8:43 AM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still,
>>> why make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
>>
>> Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of us
>> should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.
>>
>> Here's how a criminal gets his gun:
>> * Criminal #1: "Here's the money."
>> * Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."
>>
>> Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much
>> different, but you get the idea.)
>
> Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that illegal
> gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its owners by
> the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through a similar
> registration process. It's not only the last perp who has an illegal gun
> and is guilty, it's all the former owners who "neglected" to legally
> transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
Need to register kitchen knives also. Oh and your machete, your
pitchfork, 2x4. All weapons of death in the wrong hands.
Take all guns off the streets and you have a new weapon of choice.
Have you ever seen a dog chasing his tail? Gun registration is not a
fix for anything. It only gives the government one more power over you
and I.
>
> Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but, using
> Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy whomhe
> surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if so did
> Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is generally
> stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the "illegal" guns.
> Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that brought them on the
> illegal market in the first place ought to help at least somewhat.
>
> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the highest
> % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that should be
> another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
And how many of those in prison are there for a reasons because there
was actually fowl play that involved a gun?? There are countless
reasons for being in joail that does not involve a weapon.
Why a greater percentage? Because of way too many stupid laws.
Seriously, someone kills your friend you are responsible for his death
because you were with him. Make up your own reason to prosecute him.
The only gun involved was the person doing the shooting with the
registered gun.
On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:40:23 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>> the young woman.
>>>
>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>
>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>
>> I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>
> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
I think he should be prosecuted for assisted burglary, not felony murder.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Han wrote:
> >
> > I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
> > licensing people for the use of them.
> >
> > This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
> > prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
> > has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
> > must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
> > didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
> > and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
> > she can.
>
> Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
> jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless she
> was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She would not
> be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the actions of the
> squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he could just as easily been
> inclined to merely rape her. She didn't know, hence she was guilty of at
> least manslaughter.
>
> What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the 'phone
> to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction where it would
> take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a "home invasion in
> progress" call.
>
> I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance drivers
> declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on break.
The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Han wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
> >> with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
> >> paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
> >
> > What's BATF?
>
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as the WACO
> (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
And even more disturbing is someone living in the US who holds forth
endlessly about the need to regulate firearms who has never heard of the
agency responsible for regulating them, let alone their more egregious
excesses.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:45:49 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >>complicity is pretty easy to establish.
> >>Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.
> >
> >I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
> >the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
> >Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
> >finding.
> >
> >I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
> >a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
> >not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
> >the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
> >me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
> >just one method they use to find more information.
> And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
> of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
> you WERE guilty of "careless driving".
> Depending on the circumstances, the charge would LIKELY be dismissed,
> and if not you would quite LIKELY be found not guilty - but by the
> letter of the law - if you were sick when you got behind the wheel,
> you WERE guilty of the charge. That's just the way the law works.
> Due care and attention would preclude you from driving if you knew you
> were not physically and mentally up to the task, or if you reasonably
> should have known.
However if you were sick to the point of passing out you might also have
been in a mentally impaired state and incapable of making such a
judgment, and it is difficult to argue effectively that one becomes sick
by intent or has any other kind of volition in the matter.
One problem with the current legal system is that it doesn't have any
place for "shit happens through nobody's fault".
> That is up to the court to decide from the evidence brought forward
> IF it gets to trial.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Swingman wrote:
> > On 1/9/2012 8:05 AM, Swingman wrote:
> >> On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> >>> Swingman wrote:
> >>>> On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
> >>>>> rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
> >>>>> unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
> >>>>> millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
> >>>>> society.
> >>>>
> >>>> The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably
> >>>> spent more time in advancing their business model through blurring
> >>>> of and shading distinctions than serving the common good.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Probably.
> >>>
> >>> Do you have an example?
> >>
> >> Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...
> >
> > And how could I have possibly missed the most egregious, self serving,
> > asinine attempt by a "legal mind" at _blurring of distinctions_ than
> > the former Asshat, disbarred lawyer prez:
> >
> > "That depends upon what the meaning of "is" is".
> >
> > There's plenty more where those came from ...
>
> Yes, including just recently our Attorney General who said something like
> "Whether something is a lie depends on the intent of the speaker."
So used car salesmen lie but computer salesmen don't? (Old joke in the
computer business--the difference between a computer salesman and a used
car salesman is that the used car salesman _knows_ when he's lying)
I learned it from you, the master of Bullshit!
Mirrors are a bitch.
-----------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The one word you most frequently pull out of your limited vocabulary.
Like
I said - consistency does have it's merits...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>
>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>
>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>
>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ... read
>> the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand that this
>> particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor does it fit with
>> the crafted distinction in all States that have a felony murder statute.
>>
>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>
> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
Involuntary manslaughter.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:59:31 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>>
>> I approved of the OJ verdict. When the prosecution couldn't even fram a
>> guilty man, the man deserves to go free.
>>
>>
>
>I hope the leather glove was not what convinced you. LOL Any gofer
>knows that a leather glove will shrink after being wet.
And it should slide on easily over a latex glove too. What idiot let
that slip by? Avoiding contamination of evidence set him free.
On 1/6/2012 1:47 PM, Han wrote:
> In NY City a group of 5 is being held, because 1 of them shot and killed
> a policeman who had cornered him in the residence. The rest were
> lookouts and/or otherwise accomplices. They are all facing charges of
> murder of some kind now, although only 1 of them did the deed. He was
> arrested and let go in spite of a NC/SC arrest warrant, but the down
> south authorities didn't want to come and get him. Apparently that was
> enough reason to let him free, damn the judge involved. Oh, yes, the gun
> used was an illegal weapon.
I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
do see the stark difference?
You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
what should be the even hand of justice.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>
>>Horseshit!
>
> 1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?
There are other possibilities... One is that he decided he couldn't or
wouldn't be able to defend himself with a gun and he projects that personal
decision on others. Freedom of choice... that's fine. Making it policy is
another issue. Alternatively, he may not have ever been in a position that
led him to really ponder the situation. Sort of along the lines of the old
joke about a Conservative being a Liberal who was mugged... though a strong
argument has been made by some of my associates that Liberals are
Conservatives who have had to deal with the police. I can appreciate that
the use of force is not for everyone. I know too many women who were
forcibly raped, one of them twice, and despite that most of them would never
be able to shoot someone. That is a reality that many may not understand but
maybe they should accept...
There is widespread misinformation about the use of force and deadly
physical force. If you carry or otherwise maintain a gun for self defense it
would behoove you to take a comprehensive course on those issues. In NY it
would revolve around P.L. article 35.
Google "Grossbohlin Chan" for articles my associates and I wrote, and
articles I critiqued as early drafts, on these issues many years ago. Gary
Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have good summary books/articles and Ed Suter
caused quite a stir with his article on the anti-gun articles in the medical
literature. As I recall I have Gary's summary of his seminal book Point
Blank on Jeff Chan's site. I'm sure Ed's article is there.
It's a complex issue... bumper stickers don't cover it!
John
On 1/6/2012 5:19 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:21:17 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 9:39 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-
> intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner
>>>> will
>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>
>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>
>>> Asshat lawyers ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No murder
>> was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to pay for
>> killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on the young
>> woman.
>
> Leon, I hope you read the responses explaining what felony murder is.
> You may not agree with it, but that's the law. You wanna' commit a
> felony? Them's the risks you take.
My bet is that Leon is well aware of what felony murder is. What he is
doing is reacting as a logical individual with common sense and respect
for reality would instinctively do when confronted with the practice of
legal fiction.
His recognition of this as being somehow not what the actual truth would
dictate, is as it should be, for the lawyers have perfected it in many
subtle ways to play loose with the legal system... just because it is
"legal" does not mean it is either right, moral, ethical, logical or, as
is evident in this particular case, even anywhere the truth of what
actually happened.
Your politicians are masters of the game and, along with the lawyers,
use it as their business model ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
"Max" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Taking a human life is a horrible
-MIKE-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uh........................Not always.
Max, 1st Cavalry Division, Korea, Aug. 1950 - Aug. 1951.
===========================================================
Go Cav!
Sonny wrote:
> Rather than "we" speak of her being traumatized (and hence, giving her
> the sense or idea that she should be), the general populace should be
> speaking of her (and, hence, giving to her the sense of) being proud
> of herself and be emotionally elevated, in the best way (exactlty the
> opposite of traumatized), that she did what she did. Lets not just
> offer her a dollar reward (material gain), but give her a mental gain,
> also, ie., it's the right thing to do, so be glad. Screw the trauma
> idea, in every way.
>
Agreed. Short of a parade in her honor, she should at least be given the key
to the city by the mayor (perhaps in a small ceremony in his office) and a
$100 gift certificate to McDonalds. And a box of replacement shotgun shells
from a local sporting goods store.
I heard that the next day she became engaged, so I guess the episode turned
out well. Actually, well times two.
Come to think on it, I might be a bit leery of being her husband...
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Steve Barker wrote:
>
>>
>> And we'll never know the outcome, because in a few days, it'll be
>> some other earth shaking "breaking news" to distract the media and
>> all will be forgotten about this incident. (i've forgotten most of
>> it already if it weren't for this thread). Anyone remember when we
>> were all gonna be killed by anthrax or the bird flue? How about
>> H1N1? That ring a bell? It's all bullshit.
>
> Yup it is - 'cause the whole damned earth is gonna blow up, or
> disappear in a vapor, or sumptin' else, later this year. Just ask
> the Myans. It's true - I read it on the internet...
If you're talking about the Mayan calendar, I don't think their calendar
predicted the end of the world. I think they just ran out of room on the
stone.
We just didn't find page two.
Dave caused the accident and nobody else.
Some say he's an accident waiting to happen.
-------------
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
However if you were sick to the point of passing out you might also
have
been in a mentally impaired state and incapable of making such a
judgment, and it is difficult to argue effectively that one becomes
sick
by intent or has any other kind of volition in the matter.
One problem with the current legal system is that it doesn't have any
place for "shit happens through nobody's fault".
On 1/6/2012 7:59 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 6:36 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>
>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>
>>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>>> how can you say?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Common sense.
>>
>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>
> No. because (a) the two of you were not involved in the commission of a
> felony, and (b) it was not reasonable foreseeable that your failure to
> buckle up would kill anyone.
OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe that
this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that go with it.
I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed while
committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder. If you were
not there, there would be no murder. Your being there and him being
killed as a result of self defense does not make you a murderer.
You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun with
out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight pulls his gun
but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are charged with felony
murder. Does that sound about right?
>
> Now, if you were committing an armed robbery of a convenience store, and
> the store clerk shot and killed your partner in crime, you convicted of
> murder for the death of your partner. But for the chain of the events
> resulting from your decision to commit a felony, no death would have
> occurred, and it is reasonably foreseeable that your intended victim
> might try to defend himself. Your intent to commit a felony transfers to
> an intent to be responsible for the results, including someone's
> potential death. There's no problem with holding you responsible for the
> consequences of that decision.
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still,
>>> why make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
>>
>> Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of
>> us should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.
>>
>> Here's how a criminal gets his gun:
>> * Criminal #1: "Here's the money."
>> * Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."
>>
>> Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much
>> different, but you get the idea.)
>
> Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that
> illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its
> owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through
> a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has
> an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who
> "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if I have
to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops have a gun
that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred. What difference
does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether the gun he uses can be
traced?
>
> Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but,
> using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy
> whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if
> so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is
> generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the
> "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that
> brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help
> at least somewhat.
No, the goblin didn't get any guns from me. He was apparently just beginning
his squit-eyed actions.
You had better check your facts: Most guns used in crime, so far as
authorities know, are NOT committed with stolen guns.
Believe me, every time authorities find a gun that has moved illegally in
commerce, those responsible are punished. Except for those thousands of guns
whose dodgy sales were sanctioned by the BATF. Most went to drug cartels in
Mexico (a good thing) but some ended up on this side of the border where
they contributed to the mayhem.
>
> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
We have the highest percentage of incarceration because we want to keep the
crime rate as low as possible. There is an obvious and dramatic inverse
relationship between crime and incarceration. This doesn't prove causality,
of course, but it's a good indicator to most folks.
Leon wrote:
>
>
> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
> the young woman.
Better check your definitions.
Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
be the felon (as in defense of self).
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08 Jan 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.
>>
>>Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the
>>obligatory bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was
>>out of my mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just
>>microwaved with some kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was
>>delicious, and held up well to warming up ...
>
> I wonder how much Agent Orange is left in the mud over there in swai
> country...but, yeah, swai is pretty good. Why is some tilapi sweet
> and mellow, the other very fishy? Is it just old fish before it's
> frozen?
I switched from tilapia to swai because of price and apparent greater
sustainability. And it also tastes better, IMO.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 08 Jan 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.
>
>Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the obligatory
>bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was out of my
>mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just microwaved with some
>kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was delicious, and held up well to
>warming up ...
I wonder how much Agent Orange is left in the mud over there in swai
country...but, yeah, swai is pretty good. Why is some tilapi sweet
and mellow, the other very fishy? Is it just old fish before it's
frozen?
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
HeyBub wrote the following:
> Han wrote:
>> I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
>> under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
>> when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
>> home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
>> acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
>> which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
>> basement, she should have used that.
>
> ## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however, have
> recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which presumes an
> intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder is not only
> justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach. That is you cannot
> be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states have gone farther (like
> mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground" standard. That is, you may
> respond with deadly force wherever you have a lawful right to be: in your
> bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk, at the mall, wherever.
>
>>> What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
>>> 'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
>>> where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
>>> "home invasion in progress" call.
>> Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
>> and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange.
>> When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
>> ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.
>
> Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you inform
> the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is roaming the
> neighborhood with a baseball bat?
911 calls usually go to the police or sheriff's office in areas where
the fire department and EMT are volunteer services.
The police are usually the first to respond followed by EMT.
It has nothing to do with a crime occuring.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
>>
> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>
> Bill
>
It is sad but probably the best out come whether she realizes it now or not.
On 1/5/2012 8:18 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
>
> Yeah, I posted a link to that one on Facebook earlier yesterday. One can
> only imagine how badly it could have gone if she hadn't been armed.
>
Hopefully the AHoles relatives will no come after her for some kind of
compensation.
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 1/6/2012 4:52 PM, Morgans wrote:
> "Leon" wrote
> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
>
> Yep. A Stevens savage pump 12 gauge. Stored with trigger lock key handy
> and loaded.
>
> -- Jim in NC
>
>
Amateur
================================================================
Got to say though that if one was to have only one gun, you can't do better
than a shotgun. Self defense, small game, big game. It'll do it all.
Doesn't lend itself to pocket carry, though.
On 1/6/2012 6:34 AM, Leon wrote:
> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
I only own one ... a Remington Model 11 20 ga which my father gave me
when I was nine. No shells are in the house.
My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
neighbor across the street.
After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
The police are "minutes away" due to responding to so many other calls due
to gun owners running around scared and acting irresponsibly.
"Gun controls" could speed up their responses.
----------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!, Max.
S/B: When every SECOND counts, the police are only MINUTES away.
-------------
Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Swingman" wrote ...
>> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-in
>>>> truder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>
>> Horseshit!
>>
> Agreed.
>
> There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days
> earlier. What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies
> if she did not shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct
> prosecutor came after her? Some self defense victims are ruined
> financially with having to defend their actions. That would certainly
> be traumatic.
>
> Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for
> 21 minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time
> protecting her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot
> who lost it and somebody died because they did not do the right thing
> and act in a manner that protected life. She did the exact right
> thing. And for that, she should be proud of herself. She was a mamma
> bear protecting her cub. I am certain that any other kind of response
> (or non response) would be terribly traumatic. Not only for her, but
> for every one who knew her. Again, she did the right thing.
>
> The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a
> woman. I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago.
> Long before it became socially acceptable to do such things. There is
> tremendous pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight
> back, don't make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to women,
> but it is a green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to prey on
> "helpless" women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A
> .38".
>
> Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted,
> I can tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a
> victim. The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who
> wanted to move on and were willing to do whatever to see that this
> sort of thing never occurred again. The other category was much more
> tragic. These poor women basically crawled into a paranoid hole and
> never came out again. They became recluses, depressed, etc. I think
> today, there would be more support for them. But the fact is that a
> large number of victims never live normal lives again.
>
> Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply
> does not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a
> cornerstone of liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm
> the populace. Apparently creating safe working conditions for
> criminals has a higher social purpose. This woman did exactly the
> right thing. She should be commended and rewarded in some fashion.
> Certainly she should be given some support of some kind. If more
> women were like her, there would be less problems in this country.
>
> And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
> use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
> outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty
> quickly. They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It
> would be better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions
> for criminals.
>
> End of rant.
I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and licensing
people for the use of them.
This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to prove
it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and has the
right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it must be
traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being didn't live
according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady and I hope she
can get on with her life as best she can as soon as she can.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> "Swingman" wrote ...
>>> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-i
>>>>> n
>>>>> truder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>>>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>>>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>>>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>>>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>>
>>> Horseshit!
>>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days
>> earlier. What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her
>> babies if she did not shoot him? Also. what if some politically
>> correct prosecutor came after her? Some self defense victims are
>> ruined financially with having to defend their actions. That would
>> certainly be traumatic.
>>
>> Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for
>> 21 minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time
>> protecting her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot
>> who lost it and somebody died because they did not do the right thing
>> and act in a manner that protected life. She did the exact right
>> thing. And for that, she should be proud of herself. She was a
>> mamma bear protecting her cub. I am certain that any other kind of
>> response (or non response) would be terribly traumatic. Not only for
>> her, but for every one who knew her. Again, she did the right thing.
>>
>> The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a
>> woman. I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago.
>> Long before it became socially acceptable to do such things. There
>> is tremendous pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't
>> fight back, don't make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to
>> women, but it is a green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to
>> prey on "helpless" women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever
>> Raped A .38".
>>
>> Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were
>> assaulted, I can tell you that hurting somebody else is far
>> preferable to being a victim. The women I worked with fell into two
>> categories. Those who wanted to move on and were willing to do
>> whatever to see that this sort of thing never occurred again. The
>> other category was much more tragic. These poor women basically
>> crawled into a paranoid hole and never came out again. They became
>> recluses, depressed, etc. I think today, there would be more support
>> for them. But the fact is that a large number of victims never live
>> normal lives again.
>>
>> Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply
>> does not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a
>> cornerstone of liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm
>> the populace. Apparently creating safe working conditions for
>> criminals has a higher social purpose. This woman did exactly the
>> right thing. She should be commended and rewarded in some fashion.
>> Certainly she should be given some support of some kind. If more
>> women were like her, there would be less problems in this country.
>>
>> And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple.
>> Just use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang
>> a sign outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed
>> pretty quickly. They take the sign down. Criminal are safety
>> conscious. It would be better for every one to created DANGEROUS
>> working conditions for criminals.
>>
>> End of rant.
>
> I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
> licensing people for the use of them.
>
> This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
> prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
> has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
> must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
> didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
> and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as she
> can.
Also, this was posted on FB by a friend, and I'll repost it here. I hope
this lady has some friends who will act on this to help her out:
1. I am not strong. I'm just numb. When you tell me I'm strong, I feel
you don't see ...me.
2. I will not recover. This is not a cold or the flu. I'm not sick. I'm
grieving and that's different. I will not always be grievi...ng as
intensely, but I will never forget my loved one. Rather than recover, I
want to incorporate her life and love into the rest of my life. That
person is a part of me and always will be, and sometimes I remember him
with joy and other times with tears. Both are ok.
3. I don't have to accept the death. Yes, I have to understand that it
has happened and it is real, but there are just some things in life that
are not acceptable.
4. Please don't avoid me. You can't catch my grief. My world is painful,
and when you are too afraid to call me or visit or say anything, you
isolate me at a time when I most need to be care about. If you don't know
what to say, just come over, give me a hug or touch my arms, and gently
say, "I'm sorry." You can even say, "I just don't know what to say, but I
care, and want you to know that."
5. Please don't call to complain about your husband, your wife, or your
children. Right now, I'd be delighted to have my loved one here, no
matter what they were doing.
6. Please dont say, Call me if you need anything. Ill never call you
because I have no idea what I need. Trying to figure out what you could
do for me takes more energy than I have. So, in advance, let me give you
some ideas:
a. Bring food
b. Offer to take my children to a movie or game so I have some moments to
myself
c. Send me a card on special holidays, birthdays (mine, his or hers), or
the anniversary of his death and make sure you mention his or her name.
You cant make me cry. The tears are here and I will love you for giving
me the opportunity to shed them because someone cared enough about me to
reach out on this difficult day.
d. Ask me more than once to join you at the movies or lunch. I may say
no at first or even for a while, but please dont give up on me because
somewhere down the line, I may be ready, and if youve given up then I
really will be alone.
7. Try to understand that this is like Im in a foreign country where I
dont speak the language and have no map to tell me what to do. Even if
there were a map, Im not sure I could understand what it was saying. Im
lost and in a fog. Im confused
8. When you tell me what I should be doing, then I feel even more lost
and alone. I feel bad enough that my loved one is dead, so please dont
make it worse by telling me Im not doing this right.
9. Please dont tell me that I can have other children or need to start
dating again. Im not ready. And maybe I dont want to. And besides, what
makes you think people are replaceable? They arent. Whoever comes after
will always be someone different.
10. I dont even understand what you mean when you say, Youve got to
get on with your life. My life is going on, but it may not look the way
you think it should. This will take time and I never will be my old self
again. So please just love me as I am today, and know, that with your
love and support, the joy will slowly return to my life. But I will never
forget and there will always be times that I cry. · This is a reprint
from a High school friend who lost her son years ago but had to let
everyone know how grief affects those who lose someone close. It is a
good primer on what not to say to those who grieve. My heart goes out to
Nanette and hope she does find solice in knowing that we all care and
understand!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
>> licensing people for the use of them.
>>
>> This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
>> prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
>> has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
>> must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
>> didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
>> and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
>> she can.
>
> Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
> jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless
> she was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She
> would not be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the
> actions of the squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he
> could just as easily been inclined to merely rape her. She didn't
> know, hence she was guilty of at least manslaughter.
I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed under
real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass. when there
was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a home invasion,
and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was acquitted, I
believe, because there was no secondary exit through which she could have
fled. Had there been another exit from the basement, she should have
used that.
> What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
> 'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
> where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
> "home invasion in progress" call.
Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange. When I
broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and ambulance were in
my back yard in minutes.
> I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance
> drivers declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on
> break.
There have been strange things like that in NY City as well, I think
(emphasis), but they are not really tolerated, nor should they. On the
other hand, an acquaintance spend almost 24 hrs in a corridor in the ER
area of New York Hospital after a suspected heart attack (wasn't a heart
attack, but he still smokes).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was armed
> with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of those
> paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
What's BATF?
What's a six-poop baby?
I retired because I love paperwork so much that I refused to do anymore.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Han wrote:
>>
>> I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
>> under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
>> when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
>> home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
>> acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
>> which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
>> basement, she should have used that.
>
> ## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however,
> have recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which
> presumes an intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder
> is not only justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach.
> That is you cannot be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states
> have gone farther (like mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground"
> standard. That is, you may respond with deadly force wherever you have
> a lawful right to be: in your bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk,
> at the mall, wherever.
>
>>
>>> What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
>>> 'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
>>> where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
>>> "home invasion in progress" call.
>>
>> Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how
>> rural and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit
>> strange. When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
>> ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.
>
> Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you
> inform the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is
> roaming the neighborhood with a baseball bat?
> ====================================================================
> The last time (only time) I broke my leg, the police were first on the
> scene. Of course, I was laying in the middle of an intersection.
It is usual here (Bergen county, NJ) that police (municipal in my case)
get to the scene first, since they are patrolling on duty. Ambulance and
fire are volunteers (doing a GREAT job!!), but with a longer response
time.
I made a mistake cutting a low branch off a dogwood, and fell off a
ladder, backwards. Very stupid, and very lucky it wasn't worse.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/5/2012 7:36 PM, Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>
>> Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
>> Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.
>
> What other time would have been better?
>
> <g, d & r>
He's dovetailing it out of here <g>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 05 Jan 2012 22:31:46 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
>>>> licensing people for the use of them.
>>>>
>>>> This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
>>>> prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
>>>> has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
>>>> must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human
>>>> being didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to
>>>> the lady and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as
>>>> soon as she can.
>>>
>>> Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
>>> jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life
>>> unless she was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even
>>> then). She would not be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her
>>> life by the actions of the squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill
>>> you," he could just as easily been inclined to merely rape her. She
>>> didn't know, hence she was guilty of at least manslaughter.
>>
>>I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
>>under real imminent threat of being harmed,
>
> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men,
> one wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
I indeed didn't listen to the whole story. I got the message almost
right away. I am not a lawyer who has to look at all sides. I believe
that indeed as you stated she was in imminent danger. And I am
definitely NOT saying she did wrong, liberal as I am <grin>.
>>and I did live in Mass. when there
>>was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a home
>>invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
>>acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
>>which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
>>basement, she should have used that.
>
> So his (possible) accomplice could have caught her instead? Right.
I lived in Mass in the early 70's - a long time ago, and my memory is
fading. If you want to research the details, go ahead. Not sure there
was or could have been an accomplice in this case.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:4f06bb0c$0$3328$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:
> On 1/5/2012 6:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 7:36 PM, Han wrote:
>>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>>>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>>
>>> Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
>>> Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.
>>
>> What other time would have been better?
>>
> Never. Never would have been better.
I agree, of course!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Han wrote:
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> >> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was
>> >> armed with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of
>> >> those paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>> >
>> > What's BATF?
>>
>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>
> And even more disturbing is someone living in the US who holds forth
> endlessly about the need to regulate firearms who has never heard of
> the agency responsible for regulating them, let alone their more
> egregious excesses.
I just don't think about them every day, and the acronym was not familiar
to me. Thanks for setting me straight. I have my opinions and I respect
those with other opinions. I only ask you do the same.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-int
>>> ruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>
> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>
> Asshat lawyers ...
I don't know. The guy knew that the lady was in her home alone, with a
baby. He and the dead dude were likely egging each other on, perhaps (as
it states) high on drugs, wanting more (money and/or drugs). Therefore,
they were both committing a feloney, and the result was 1 dead dude. The
other should be charged with at least soomething, leading to the death of
the first one.
I'm glad I live on the other side of the Passaic River ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-int
>>> ruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>
> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>
> Asshat lawyers ...
Here in Indiana, the law holds all participants in a crime to be fully responsible for all of the results of
that crime. If four men rob a home and kill the homeowner, all four will be charged with the murder of
the homeowner; if, instead, the homeowner kills one of the robbers, the three surviving robbers will
be charged with the murder of the dead robber. It appears that Oklahoma law has similar
provisions. I bet Texas law does, too.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know. The guy knew that the lady was in her home alone, with
>> a baby. He and the dead dude were likely egging each other on,
>> perhaps (as it states) high on drugs, wanting more (money and/or
>> drugs). Therefore, they were both committing a feloney, and the
>> result was 1 dead dude. The other should be charged with at least
>> soomething, leading to the death of the first one.
>>
>> I'm glad I live on the other side of the Passaic River ...
>
> Have not really thought this through, but I think at first blush I
> disagree Han. The dude that went in got what he deserved. The other
> guy did not and he should not be responsible for the fate of the first
> guy. Other charges? Sure. Attempted burlary or the likes would work
> for me. Other types of charges reflecting his actual participation?
> Sure. Just not sure I see the real logic in the murder
> (manslaughter?) charges.
Apparently it is quite common in the states that when a group (2 or more)
hatch a plan to commit a crime, and a death occurs, that all involved
except the victim(s) are painted with the same brush as the actual
perpetrator.
In NY City a group of 5 is being held, because 1 of them shot and killed
a policeman who had cornered him in the residence. The rest were
lookouts and/or otherwise accomplices. They are all facing charges of
murder of some kind now, although only 1 of them did the deed. He was
arrested and let go in spite of a NC/SC arrest warrant, but the down
south authorities didn't want to come and get him. Apparently that was
enough reason to let him free, damn the judge involved. Oh, yes, the gun
used was an illegal weapon.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 00:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:56:55 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> To each his own. I have no objection to you smoking or whatever the
>> lesser stuff, as long as you don't commit crimes getting it, or drive
>> while under the influence.
>
>That's probably the way it should be handled - DUI. Or as an aggravating
>factor of any crime committed while UI.
>
>That way we could avoid making criminals rich.
Which, the perps on the street or those in suits and ties with law
degrees?
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
lots of snippage
> OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe
> that this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that go
> with it.
>
> I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed while
> committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder. If you
> were not there, there would be no murder. Your being there and him
> being killed as a result of self defense does not make you a murderer.
Even in a liberal state (I think) like New York, they are charging the 4
friends of the perp who killed a policeman during the commission of a
burglary with murder of some kind. They were active participants in the
robbery, not just lookouts. Slightly, but perhaps significantly
different. sorry for the wrap
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/nyregion/at-scene-of-brooklyn-robbery-
a-police-dept-veteran-is-fatally-shot.html?scp=5&sq=figoski&st=cse>
or
http://tinyurl.com/7dmxywd
> You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun with
> out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight pulls his
> gun but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are charged with
> felony murder. Does that sound about right?
This is different. The 2 go into the bar to have drinks, not to have a
fight.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> <g> OK, you understand that the criminals don't do that, so what
> difference will gun registration make, Han? Why is that such a good
> idea to you? I don't understand that. It only penalizes the GOOD
> guys.
You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still, why
make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still,
>> why make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
>
> Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of us
> should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.
>
> Here's how a criminal gets his gun:
> * Criminal #1: "Here's the money."
> * Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."
>
> Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much
> different, but you get the idea.)
Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that illegal
gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its owners by
the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through a similar
registration process. It's not only the last perp who has an illegal gun
and is guilty, it's all the former owners who "neglected" to legally
transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but, using
Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy whomhe
surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if so did
Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is generally
stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the "illegal" guns.
Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that brought them on the
illegal market in the first place ought to help at least somewhat.
Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the highest
% of population in prison of all Western countries, but that should be
another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:40:23 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>>On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick
>>>> on the young woman.
>>>
>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>
>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide
>>> committed during the commission of a felony. Note the person
>>> committing the homicide need not be the felon (as in defense of
>>> self).
>>
>>I understand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>
> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
Hey!! I agree with that - deterrence may even work sometimes.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
>>>>>> ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
>>>>>> commonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
>>>>> someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
>>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
>>>> read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
>>>> that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
>>>> does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
>>>> felony murder statute.
>>>>
>>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>>
>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>
>>Involuntary manslaughter.
>
> Works for me.
>
That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>
>> Involuntary manslaughter.
>
> And if he was merely sitting in the getaway car? Illegal parking?
If they planned to do a burglary or rape the woman, it is still felony
murder for the waiting driver. Perhaps not the maximum sentence.
Think of the deterrrence value of it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/6/2012 9:01 PM, Han wrote:
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> lots of snippage
>>
>>> OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe
>>> that this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that
>>> go with it.
>>>
>>> I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed
>>> while committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder.
>>> If you were not there, there would be no murder. Your being there
>>> and him being killed as a result of self defense does not make you a
>>> murderer.
>>
>> Even in a liberal state (I think) like New York, they are charging
>> the 4 friends of the perp who killed a policeman during the
>> commission of a burglary with murder of some kind. They were active
>> participants in the robbery, not just lookouts. Slightly, but
>> perhaps significantly different. sorry for the wrap
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/nyregion/at-scene-of-brooklyn-robbe
>> ry-
>> a-police-dept-veteran-is-fatally-shot.html?scp=5&sq=figoski&st=cse>
>> or
>> http://tinyurl.com/7dmxywd
>>
>>> You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun
>>> with out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight
>>> pulls his gun but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are
>>> charged with felony murder. Does that sound about right?
>>
>> This is different. The 2 go into the bar to have drinks, not to have
>> a fight.
>
> You assume that they go in for drinks but your buddy is taking in a
> gun to even a score.
Well, I wouldn't take a gun anywhere <grin>. And I certainly wouldn't go
with someone who is carrying a gun into any kind of drinking
establishment. But now you are supposing guy #2 knew that guy #1 was
carrying. Maybe yes, maybe no. Moreover, I don't know how excitable the
guys are/were.
I thought they were just some drinking buddies who are/were generally
peacable. But then, I like to be optimistic about peoples intentions.
Which, my ultra-right wing buddie says, is just plain wrong.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:CpadnbRd8Z-
[email protected]:
> I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
> intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is suppose to
> only use actual facts.
Thanks, Leon, I think. I have a better idea of "the other guys'" concepts
and preconceived views now. I don't necessarily agree ...
I am getting rather (not sarcastic, I forget the word now) of what it
really is that a court of law does. We have trial by jury because who can
trust a judge appointed for life or chosen by the "people", who has to run
soon again for reelection. Then we have trial lawyers who get paid by
their client (either the perp or complainant, or the "people") and
sometimes do an excellent and convincing job of twisting the jury's mind.
Think about OJ. etc. etc.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/7/2012 8:43 AM, Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful.
>>>> Still, why make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
>>>
>>> Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of
>>> us should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.
>>>
>>> Here's how a criminal gets his gun:
>>> * Criminal #1: "Here's the money."
>>> * Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."
>>>
>>> Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much
>>> different, but you get the idea.)
>>
>> Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that
>> illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its
>> owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through
>> a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has
>> an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who
>> "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
>
> Need to register kitchen knives also. Oh and your machete, your
> pitchfork, 2x4. All weapons of death in the wrong hands.
>
> Take all guns off the streets and you have a new weapon of choice.
The guy who got angry at me for barely bumping the rear wheel of the bike
he was pushing on the sidewalk threw his slize of pizza at me. I guess I
was lucky he didn't have a gun or knife and that he was restrained by the
streetvendors. I think there is a difference in the effects of a slice
of pizza and a gun though.
> Have you ever seen a dog chasing his tail? Gun registration is not a
> fix for anything. It only gives the government one more power over
> you and I.
I have no objection tosomeone having a gun, IF they know how to handle it
responsibly. The fact that now anyone who really wants it can get a gun
without anyone checking on him is what makes it scary for me. I really
think that should be made more difficult, and that both the buyer and
seller should face the consequences of an illegal act.
>> Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but,
>> using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy
>> whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if
>> so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is
>> generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the
>> "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that
>> brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help
>> at least somewhat.
>>
>> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
>> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
>> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
>
> And how many of those in prison are there for a reasons because there
> was actually fowl play that involved a gun?? There are countless
> reasons for being in joail that does not involve a weapon.
As I said, a different subject, but one of the facets of a less lawful
society.
> Why a greater percentage? Because of way too many stupid laws.
We have gone over the aspects that the law of felony murder is likely
because of deterrence, and to get the guy who had been stirring up the
trouble and was "smart" enough to let someone else do the deed.
> Seriously, someone kills your friend you are responsible for his death
> because you were with him. Make up your own reason to prosecute him.
> The only gun involved was the person doing the shooting with the
> registered gun.
??
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/7/2012 9:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
>>> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
>>
>> In cases where it applies, yes.
>>
>> That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
>> and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios,
>> to bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.
>>
>
> Exactly! Lets not consider the actual facts and what actually
> happened.
>
> Lets imagine the worst and go for that.
That's what usenet is for!!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/7/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:CpadnbRd8Z-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
>>> intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is
>>> suppose to only use actual facts.
>>
>> Thanks, Leon, I think. I have a better idea of "the other guys'"
>> concepts and preconceived views now. I don't necessarily agree ...
>>
>> I am getting rather (not sarcastic, I forget the word now) of what it
>> really is that a court of law does. We have trial by jury because
>> who can trust a judge appointed for life or chosen by the "people",
>> who has to run soon again for reelection. Then we have trial lawyers
>> who get paid by their client (either the perp or complainant, or the
>> "people") and sometimes do an excellent and convincing job of
>> twisting the jury's mind. Think about OJ. etc. etc.
>>
>
> There is that but eventually they got OJ red handed.
That was only because he got too arrgant and stupid.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
[...]
> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
Largely because of our absurd policy of jailing people for using drugs, or for possessing small
amounts for personal use.
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> [...]
>> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
>> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
>> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
>
> Largely because of our absurd policy of jailing people for using
> drugs, or for possessing small amounts for personal use.
I was born in Holland, so follow with some interest the Amsterdam
experiences. It does turn out only semi-beneficial to allow low-level
drugs. One bad aspect is the riffraff drugtourists coming in. That
causes troubles in tourist areas (not only Amsterdam). Another is the
"gateway" to small-time and not so smalltime transgressions of the law in
other areas, hard(er) drugs, prostitution and human trafficking. So I
haven't reall formed a hard opinion, but I think that somewhere there
should be a definite and definitive border beyond which it is a real bad
crime. But, yes, it would likely be beneficial to drug users and society
as a whole if personal drug use would be allowed, and somehow regulated
and taxed.
YMMV!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
>>> wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a
>>> piss.
>>
>> He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide
>> intent and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).
>>
>
> Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I
> think that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that
> some one said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems
> to be common knowledge only here in this group. ;~)
"Prosecutors have instead charged the intruder's alleged accomplice, 29-
year-old Dustin Stewart, with first-degree murder in the death of his
friend, Justin Shane Martin, 24."
A news report, so not authoritative ...
http://tinyurl.com/6t4ggnq
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-mom-face-charges-victims-accomplice/story?
id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Great, I won't see you. I meant Medford, OR, as I'm sure you knew.
Yep
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 08 Jan 2012 23:08:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08 Jan 2012 21:41:15 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where?
>>
>> Now that tilapia is US farm raises, swai, the import, is out. ;)
>>
>>>This is possibly a better guide:
>>>
>http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx
>>>But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway.
>>
>> Ha! I just got done reading the articles there myself. There are
>> lots of fish with high mercury levels shown there.
>>
>> Both tilapia and swai have been running between $3.50 and $5/lb here,
>> usually within 50 cents of each other in price. It's all either
>> frozen or previously frozen here.
>>
>> Something I haven't tried yet is a swaiburger.
>> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Seafood-Doctor-Inc/177452212299551
>> I may try one tomorrow. I'll be passing through Medford.
>
>Great, in a few days I'll be nest to Medford, MA
>;-)
Great, I won't see you. I meant Medford, OR, as I'm sure you knew.
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/7/2012 2:33 PM, Han wrote:
>> Doug Miller<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
> Snip
>
>
> But, yes, it would likely be beneficial to drug users and society
>> as a whole if personal drug use would be allowed, and somehow
>> regulated and taxed.
>>
>> YMMV!
>
>
> Do to Denver, you may buy your drugs there with the good graces of law
> enforcement.
Oops. For the record, I use medications, not what generally is thought
of as drugs. The silly giggling of a friend smoking something made the
decision for me. The smell of marihuana smoke in the rest room closest
to my lab in the VA clinched it.
To each his own. I have no objection to you smoking or whatever the
lesser stuff, as long as you don't commit crimes getting it, or drive
while under the influence.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/7/2012 2:36 PM, Han wrote:
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say
>>>>> I'll wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take
>>>>> a piss.
>>>>
>>>> He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide
>>>> intent and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I
>>> think that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that
>>> some one said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems
>>> to be common knowledge only here in this group. ;~)
>>
>> "Prosecutors have instead charged the intruder's alleged accomplice,
>> 29- year-old Dustin Stewart, with first-degree murder in the death of
>> his friend, Justin Shane Martin, 24."
>> A news report, so not authoritative ...
>> http://tinyurl.com/6t4ggnq
>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-mom-face-charges-victims-accomplice/stor
>> y? id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U
>>
>
> Humm... we'll now see if it makes it to court.
That's a whole other kettle of fish ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I understand that those "drug legal areas" have been rescinded and no
> longer exist in the last few years.
>
As I understood it, the law still says it's illegal, but there is a
gentleman's agreement (change wording as appropriate) that personal
enjoyment is allowed, and serving that personal enjoyment in what in
Amsterdam is called "coffeeshops" is fine too. Because of (mostly German)
drug tourism and vandalism, such is not the case for non-citizens in
communities very close to the German border. But, hey, I'm not really
interested in it, so take it for what it is, usenet noise ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that
>> illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its
>> owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through
>> a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has
>> an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who
>> "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
>
> Oh - pure bullshit. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For
> christ's sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It
> gets stolen. What freakin' good is your almighty registration? Do you
> even think before you write this stuff? The real world is about more
> than your feel good crap. Sorry - but this brain dead line of thought
> really hits a nerve.
>
>
>>
>> Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but,
>> using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy
>> whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if
>> so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is
>> generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the
>> "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that
>> brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help
>> at least somewhat.
>>
>
> You are a dreamer. Do you really even understand where illegal guns
> come from? Do you really believe they all come from traceable
> sources? Do you really believe the capacity even exists to actually
> trace these things? Have you thought this out at all?
>
>
>> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
>> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
>> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
>
> Oh... that would be a thread, wouldn't it? You're just feeling wicked
> tonight aren't you...?
Are you saying that trafficking in stolen guns is so well established
that we really shouldn't consider it illegal anymore? Your trains of
thought are insane, IMNSHO. Of course, I admit that you think otherwise.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful.
>>>> Still, why make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
>>>
>>> Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of
>>> us should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.
>>>
>>> Here's how a criminal gets his gun:
>>> * Criminal #1: "Here's the money."
>>> * Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."
>>>
>>> Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much
>>> different, but you get the idea.)
>>
>> Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that
>> illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its
>> owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through
>> a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has
>> an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who
>> "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
>
> What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if I
> have to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops
> have a gun that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred.
> What difference does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether
> the gun he uses can be traced?
Seems to me it would make a definite difference to the prosecution of the
ccriminal(s).
>> Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but,
>> using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy
>> whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if
>> so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is
>> generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the
>> "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that
>> brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help
>> at least somewhat.
>
> No, the goblin didn't get any guns from me. He was apparently just
> beginning his squit-eyed actions.
Good for you. I hope things are well locked up in your house now.
> You had better check your facts: Most guns used in crime, so far as
> authorities know, are NOT committed with stolen guns.
Illegal guns then.
> Believe me, every time authorities find a gun that has moved illegally
> in commerce, those responsible are punished. Except for those
> thousands of guns whose dodgy sales were sanctioned by the BATF. Most
> went to drug cartels in Mexico (a good thing) but some ended up on
> this side of the border where they contributed to the mayhem.
It amazes me that now you seem to imply that BATF should be more
empowered, but that would be GOOD in my opinion, at least if they get the
deadbrains out of the line of command.
>> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
>> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
>> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
>
> We have the highest percentage of incarceration because we want to
> keep the crime rate as low as possible. There is an obvious and
> dramatic inverse relationship between crime and incarceration. This
> doesn't prove causality, of course, but it's a good indicator to most
> folks.
My train of thought is - more poor and desperate people - easy drug use -
more criminality - more incarceration. But then, that's another train of
thought.
For the record, there are areas in Amsterdam (or other cities) where
walking around at night may not be advisable. But I have walked round
many areas of New York City without incidents of any consequence too, but
mostly during daytime or early evening.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
>>> rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
>>> unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
>>> millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
>>> society.
>>
>> The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
>> more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
>> shading distinctions than serving the common good.
>
> Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.
>
> Probably.
>
> Do you have an example?
Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Max wrote:
> "Mike M" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with
> ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then
> shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you
> have to protect yourself I'll reconsider.
>
> Mike M
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away.
>
Uh, the approved quote is "... MINUTES away."
Recall the gal in Oklahoma who recently blew away a berserker breaking into
her house? The one where the 911 dispatcher said "... do what you have to
do..."?
It took the cops TWENTY-ONE MINUTES to respond!. To a home invasion in
progress.
Pitiful.
And educational.
Ed Pawlowski wrote the following:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:17:54 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> No Max, it's always horrible. Even though it is often justified,
>> valiant, heroic, and wise, anytime man is forced to play God in deciding
>> when another life shall end, it is also tragic.
>>
>
> In a case like this, the guy made a bad choice. IMO, he took his own
> life by taking the risk of breaking into someone's home. I've never
> killed anyone, never had the need or desire, but if it comes down to
> me or you, easy decision.
It's not always a decision. It's more likely instinct and training. You
second guess the decision later.
I too, have never taken a life, and for that I am grateful.
My last job required that I carry a gun, and I did for 38 years.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @
On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>
>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>
>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>
>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ... read
>> the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand that this
>> particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor does it fit with
>> the crafted distinction in all States that have a felony murder statute.
>>
>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>
> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
The prescribed punishment for what he confessed to, not a witch hunt
punishment. If this liberal law and lawyers thought that they had half
a chance of nailing the woman for the murder and not create public
outrage the other idiot would probably be sentenced with 90 days of
public service.
On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>
> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
> be charged with felony murder.
I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
Asshat lawyers ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:12:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Have you ever seen a dog chasing his tail? Gun registration is not a
>fix for anything. It only gives the government one more power over you
>and I.
There *are* some advantages to registering guns. If some are stolen,
they can be returned to the lawful owner assuming serials haven't been
removed.
There's a definite advantage to law enforcement if they can track a
gun from the original owner to where it's finally seized.
Another reason may be to cause gun owners to reasonably and safely
store their firearms as they should be doing. Too many children are
killed or injured every year because of improperly stored guns.
None of these reasons have anything to do with this Mom protecting her
child as she was fully entitled to do. Just that there can be reasons
why some gun control has good purpose.
Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 21:24:41 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> Oh - pure bullshit. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For
>> christ's sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It
>> gets stolen. What freakin' good is your almighty registration?
>
> There is often a definite advantage to law enforcement if some sort of
> trail can be established from where, when and who the gun was stolen
> from.
>
> Consider this. A bunch of guns are stolen in the US and find their way
> into a smuggling ring that brings them up to Canada. (As has happened
> many times). Knowing where these guns came from in the US lets law
> enforcement focus on certain areas and travel routes more than others.
> Every little bit of knowledge helps in trying to prevent such
> occurrences.
>
> How about a closely comparable example? Knowing where many/most of the
> illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border into the US, lets
> immigration concentrate more on a particular area.
>
> Same situation, different subjects, both true. Tell me you dispute
> this?
I do dispute it. I believe it makes a plausible sounding argument, but it
does not work out that way often, in real life. Criminals are not so
stupid. Guns get laundered through other criminal elements, distributed
across wider areas, etc. Or - perhaps more likely, used locally where the
registration information is useless.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 21:24:41 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>Oh - pure bullshit. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For christ's
>sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It gets stolen.
>What freakin' good is your almighty registration?
There is often a definite advantage to law enforcement if some sort of
trail can be established from where, when and who the gun was stolen
from.
Consider this. A bunch of guns are stolen in the US and find their way
into a smuggling ring that brings them up to Canada. (As has happened
many times). Knowing where these guns came from in the US lets law
enforcement focus on certain areas and travel routes more than others.
Every little bit of knowledge helps in trying to prevent such
occurrences.
How about a closely comparable example? Knowing where many/most of the
illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border into the US, lets
immigration concentrate more on a particular area.
Same situation, different subjects, both true. Tell me you dispute
this?
On 1/7/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:CpadnbRd8Z-
> [email protected]:
>
>> I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
>> intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is suppose to
>> only use actual facts.
>
> Thanks, Leon, I think. I have a better idea of "the other guys'" concepts
> and preconceived views now. I don't necessarily agree ...
>
> I am getting rather (not sarcastic, I forget the word now) of what it
> really is that a court of law does. We have trial by jury because who can
> trust a judge appointed for life or chosen by the "people", who has to run
> soon again for reelection. Then we have trial lawyers who get paid by
> their client (either the perp or complainant, or the "people") and
> sometimes do an excellent and convincing job of twisting the jury's mind.
> Think about OJ. etc. etc.
>
There is that but eventually they got OJ red handed.
Han wrote:
>
> I don't know. The guy knew that the lady was in her home alone, with
> a baby. He and the dead dude were likely egging each other on,
> perhaps (as it states) high on drugs, wanting more (money and/or
> drugs). Therefore, they were both committing a feloney, and the
> result was 1 dead dude. The other should be charged with at least
> soomething, leading to the death of the first one.
>
> I'm glad I live on the other side of the Passaic River ...
Have not really thought this through, but I think at first blush I disagree
Han. The dude that went in got what he deserved. The other guy did not and
he should not be responsible for the fate of the first guy. Other charges?
Sure. Attempted burlary or the likes would work for me. Other types of
charges reflecting his actual participation? Sure. Just not sure I see the
real logic in the murder (manslaughter?) charges.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Kris K. Kaput0 wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?
>>>
>>> I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to
>>> shoot people for looking at them funny, too.
>>
>> Moronic statements help the situation how? All you did was to show
>> your ignorance and you probably thought you were being funny.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Somebody has to stop this guns
>>> out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.
>>>
>>
>> Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted.
>
>
> We sure do luv our guns now, don't we?
We sure do luv stirring up shit now, don't we? You and m II will get along
good in bed together - the both of you love to spout crap that has nothing
to do with topics being discussed.
Oh well - you've been here before and you'll leave again...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:02:59 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>> I do dispute it. I believe it makes a plausible sounding argument,
>> but it does not work out that way often, in real life. Criminals
>> are not so stupid. Guns get laundered through other criminal
>> elements, distributed across wider areas, etc. Or - perhaps more
>> likely, used locally where the registration information is useless.
>
> You can't argue your way out of an immutable fact Mike. Criminal
> elements and organizations have been exporting guns to Canada for a
> long time. That's fact. Tracking information (where it exists) goes a
> long way in the fight to prevent this trafficing.
>
> As I said before, every little bit of information in this fight,
> helps. Registration is just a part of that fight. You want to call it
> a small part? Fine, I'll give you that, but the basic premise still
> stands.
I have not tried to argue that guns are not exported illegally to Canada.
What I'm saying is that registration information is of little or no value,
regardless of how good that idea may feel. You state that tracking
information goes a long way to fight this trafficing, and that's the point I
contest. That's the feel good hope of programs like registration, but the
problem is that it's only feel good.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted.
IMNSHO, laws are enacted to officially codify what should be natural,
sensible behavior. In that, laws are merely devices to punish the non-
compliant. Thanks to our excessively brilliant and selfserving lawyers,
who can't stop devising more and more asinine rules, laws have unintended
consequences galore. As far as guns is concerned, it should be simple. As
instruments of lethal force from a distance, they should be registered at
manufacture and each time one is conveyed to another "owner" should be
recorded, in order to establish (admittedly ex post facto) who did the
false deed. On top of that each person desirous of owning a firearm should
show somehow that he/she is capable of responsibly owning such.
</rant>
This is usenet. The above is a single man's opinion. You're free to
disagree.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?
>
>I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to shoot
>people for looking at them funny, too.
Moronic statements help the situation how? All you did was to show
your ignorance and you probably thought you were being funny.
>Somebody has to stop this guns
>out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.
>
Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted.
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:40:33 -0500, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?
>>
>>I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to shoot
>>people for looking at them funny, too.
>
> Moronic statements help the situation how? All you did was to show
> your ignorance and you probably thought you were being funny.
>
>
>
>> Somebody has to stop this guns
>> out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.
>>
>
> Lawbreakers don't care how many new laws are enacted.
We sure do luv our guns now, don't we?
--
KKK
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:02:59 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>I do dispute it. I believe it makes a plausible sounding argument, but it
>does not work out that way often, in real life. Criminals are not so
>stupid. Guns get laundered through other criminal elements, distributed
>across wider areas, etc. Or - perhaps more likely, used locally where the
>registration information is useless.
You can't argue your way out of an immutable fact Mike. Criminal
elements and organizations have been exporting guns to Canada for a
long time. That's fact. Tracking information (where it exists) goes a
long way in the fight to prevent this trafficing.
As I said before, every little bit of information in this fight,
helps. Registration is just a part of that fight. You want to call it
a small part? Fine, I'll give you that, but the basic premise still
stands.
Han wrote:
>
> I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
> under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
> when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
> home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
> acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
> which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
> basement, she should have used that.
## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however, have
recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which presumes an
intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder is not only
justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach. That is you cannot
be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states have gone farther (like
mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground" standard. That is, you may
respond with deadly force wherever you have a lawful right to be: in your
bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk, at the mall, wherever.
>
>> What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
>> 'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
>> where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
>> "home invasion in progress" call.
>
> Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
> and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange.
> When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
> ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.
Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you inform
the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is roaming the
neighborhood with a baseball bat?
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:28:56 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance drivers
>declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on break.
That sounds close to an incident at a Niagara Falls hopital. An 82
year old women fell down and broke her leg in the hospital parking
lot. As security guard went into the hospital to ask for help and was
told to call an ambulance.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111018/woman-breaks-leg-in-hospital-calls-ambulance-111018/
Leon wrote:
>>
>> 1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?
>
> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
Good point. Guns are like cats - one is never enough (in parts of the deep
South, it's dogs).
Now my current squeeze has only one gun (a .38 derringer she carries in her
purse and yes, she has a concealed handgun license). But she as access to MY
guns - there's a handgun in almost every room. So I guess sharing counts,
too.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:14:00 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:40:23 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>>> the young woman.
>>>>
>>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>>
>>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>>
>>> I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>>
>> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
>> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
>
>I think he should be prosecuted for assisted burglary, not felony murder.
What about the rape? Is there any doubt in your mind that if she had
-not- stopped them, they both would have raped her, then possibly
killed both her and the baby?
The problem is that now he'll go to jail, spend time with much more
hardened criminals, and learn how to do things right the next time.
<sigh>
Too bad she didn't have slugs and the guys were stacked up in the
doorway. It would have made things much simpler.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On 1/6/2012 7:50 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was
>>>>> armed with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of
>>>>> those paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>>>>
>>>> What's BATF?
>>>
>>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually in Waco, Texas, it is the TABC. Tobacco, Alcohol, and
>> Beverage, Commission. IIRC there is no Bureau.
>
> TABC is the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
>
>
I stand corrected again. DAMN! And I verified with my wife who is an
enforcement office for the state comptrollers office. Perhaps in the
last 32 years the term has changed.
On 1/6/2012 8:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> 1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?
>>
>> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
>
> Good point. Guns are like cats - one is never enough (in parts of the deep
> South, it's dogs).
>
> Now my current squeeze has only one gun (a .38 derringer she carries in her
> purse and yes, she has a concealed handgun license). But she as access to MY
> guns - there's a handgun in almost every room. So I guess sharing counts,
> too.
>
>
There you go!
Leon wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 8:17 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> Common sense.
>>>
>>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets
>>> hit and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were
>>> riding with out wearing a seat belt????
>>>
>>>
>>> Now do you see the logic?
>>
>> No, I don't see the logic, nor, evidently, do you.
>>
>> A passenger in a car is not a participant in any offense in which
>> the driver partakes.
>>
>> Take it further: You are a passenger in a car. Your buddy, the
>> driver, gets incensed over the actions of another driver, pulls up
>> beside the other driver, and, through the open window, shoots the
>> other driver dead. Are you in any way guilty of anything? Of course
>> not.
>
> Same thing with the buddy standing out side.
Only if the buddy in no way helped the assailant. It's true that when the
ass-hat kicks down the door, the buddy has no duty to intervene, but in the
instant case, the buddy was an active, willing participant in the crime.
Steve Barker wrote:
>
> And we'll never know the outcome, because in a few days, it'll be some
> other earth shaking "breaking news" to distract the media and all will
> be forgotten about this incident. (i've forgotten most of it already
> if it weren't for this thread). Anyone remember when we were all
> gonna be killed by anthrax or the bird flue? How about H1N1? That
> ring a bell? It's all bullshit.
Yup it is - 'cause the whole damned earth is gonna blow up, or disappear in
a vapor, or sumptin' else, later this year. Just ask the Myans. It's
true - I read it on the internet...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>complicity is pretty easy to establish.
>Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.
I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
finding.
I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
just one method they use to find more information.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:40:23 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>> the young woman.
>>
>> Better check your definitions.
>>
>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>
>I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On 1/7/2012 7:27 AM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>>>> loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>>>> door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>>>> neighbor across the street.
>>>>
>>>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>>>> in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>>>
>>> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
>>
>> Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
>> walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
>> about it. I have ...
>
>
> Maybe you should take the blade off of your table saw too...
What an asinine, thoughtless, irrelevant statement.
Just the thought of what could happen were your wife and daughter to
walk into that kind of situation obviously goes right over your head, eh?
On second thought, add "stupid" to the first sentence ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 06 Jan 2012 18:42:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-int
>>>> ruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>
>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>>
>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>
>> Asshat lawyers ...
>
>I don't know. The guy knew that the lady was in her home alone, with a
>baby. He and the dead dude were likely egging each other on, perhaps (as
>it states) high on drugs, wanting more (money and/or drugs). Therefore,
Um, she was a looker and the guy she shot had been stalking her that
day. I think they wanted something other than money or drugs from her.
>they were both committing a feloney, and the result was 1 dead dude. The
>other should be charged with at least soomething, leading to the death of
>the first one.
It's common for all parties involved to be charged with conspiracy to
murder when a death occurs during the commission of the crime. It
isn't often -pursued-, though. Yeah, the second guy needs to be
punished for his involvement, but I'm not sure a murder rap is the
correct punishment. I guess we'll see. Was it he who got the other
guy interested in the woman so he could get sloppy seconds? Maybe it
is a fitting punishment after all. I group rape and murder pretty
closely as far as heinous crimes go. Rape can taint the woman and all
of the people around her for a lifetime, sometimes being worse than
death.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
Leon wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but
>>> you do see the stark difference?
>>>
>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>
>>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>>
>> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do
>> the robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the
>> robbery, a teller is shot and killed.
>>
>> Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with
>> double-parking? No, you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But
>> HE didn't rob anybody or even attempt to do so! He was merely
>> sitting in the car outside the bank with the engine running.
>>
>> The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
>> committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible
>> for any act that any member undertakes.
>>
>>
>
> Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make
> a deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
> go to jail responsible for his death.
No you don't. We have a teaching moment here; The basic theory of criminal
law is that every offence is predicated on the state of mind of the accused.
In the example you posit, there is no "mens rea", or guilty mind. Without
the requisite criminal (or negligent) intent, there is no crime. Period. End
of story. The driver must have known, or should have known, that a robbery
was planned before any sanction can attach. Mere presence is not enough
because, as you proposed, the presence was entirely innocent.
On 1/7/2012 12:08 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:13:31 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> Exactly and throw the case out because there was no murder.
>
> I'll betcha' a rusty scraper blade that doesn't happen.
>
We will have to just wait and see. I'll take you up on that but I will
pay you a new scraper blade if he goes to trial for felony murder. ;~)
On 1/7/2012 1:19 PM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/7/2012 9:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
>>>> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
>>>
>>> In cases where it applies, yes.
>>>
>>> That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
>>> and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios,
>>> to bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly! Lets not consider the actual facts and what actually
>> happened.
>>
>> Lets imagine the worst and go for that.
>
> That's what usenet is for!!!
>
Yeah! LOL
On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>> loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>> door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>> neighbor across the street.
>>
>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>> in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>
> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
about it. I have ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:52 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>
>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>
>>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>>
>> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
>> robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
>> is shot and killed.
>>
>> Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
>> you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
>> even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
>> with the engine running.
>>
>> The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
>> committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
>> act that any member undertakes.
>>
>>
>
>Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
>deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
>go to jail responsible for his death.
That's where the law can fall down. It leaves it up to the DA whether
or not to prosecute the driver as a getaway conspirator or just let
him go as an unsuspecting friend.
In places like Gnu Yawk Shitty, with foaming-at-the-mouth liberals
like Bloomberg and his pet DA, you're hung before you're arrested.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:36:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>
>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>
>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>> how can you say?
>>
>>
>
>Common sense.
>
>You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>out wearing a seat belt????
>
>
>Now do you see the logic?
No FELONY involved.
Han wrote:
>
> Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that
> illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its
> owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through
> a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has
> an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who
> "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.
Oh - pure bullshit. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For christ's
sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It gets stolen.
What freakin' good is your almighty registration? Do you even think before
you write this stuff? The real world is about more than your feel good
crap. Sorry - but this brain dead line of thought really hits a nerve.
>
> Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but,
> using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy
> whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if
> so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is
> generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the
> "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that
> brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help
> at least somewhat.
>
You are a dreamer. Do you really even understand where illegal guns come
from? Do you really believe they all come from traceable sources? Do you
really believe the capacity even exists to actually trace these things?
Have you thought this out at all?
> Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
> highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
> should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.
Oh... that would be a thread, wouldn't it? You're just feeling wicked
tonight aren't you...?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 1/7/2012 2:33 PM, Han wrote:
> Doug Miller<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
Snip
But, yes, it would likely be beneficial to drug users and society
> as a whole if personal drug use would be allowed, and somehow regulated
> and taxed.
>
> YMMV!
Do to Denver, you may buy your drugs there with the good graces of law
enforcement.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:27:37 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Larry W) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>>>> loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>>>> door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>>>> neighbor across the street.
>>>>
>>>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>>>> in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>>>
>>> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
>>
>>Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
>>walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
>>about it. I have ...
They would have found a locked safe and left. And if you walked in
and they wanted you to open it, you'd say "It's my wife's safe. I
don't know the combo." Right?
>Maybe you should take the blade off of your table saw too...
Yeah, and nailguns with nails can be murder...
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
>> wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a piss.
>
> He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide intent
> and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).
>
Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I think
that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that some one
said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems to be common
knowledge only here in this group. ;~)
Leon wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was
>>>> armed with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of
>>>> those paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>>>
>>> What's BATF?
>>
>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually in Waco, Texas, it is the TABC. Tobacco, Alcohol, and
> Beverage, Commission. IIRC there is no Bureau.
Both Waco and Ruby Ridge were Federal involvement - BATF.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
m II wrote:
> The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?
I have no idea what a "USanian" is - perhaps if you were to write with
generally accepted language your mindless ramblings might at least fall into
a context.
As for the Right to Bear Arms - have not seen that put forth by anyone but
you. Keep trying - at some point if you keep repeating irrelevant garbage,
someone might just take you up on the topic. Unfortunately for you - no one
is speaking about the right to keep and bear arms.
>
> I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to
> shoot people for looking at them funny, too. Somebody has to stop
> this guns out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.
You understand? That's an oxymoron.
> Seems fairly obvious the gun advocates display obsessive compulsive
> disorders. It would be comparable in obsession to the ISLAMic
> advocates seen here occasionally.
>
Obsessive compulsive would apply better to an idiot that continues to
interject irrelevant comments into a conversation where the topic of his
babble has not previously been introduced.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
>>>> rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
>>>> unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
>>>> millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
>>>> society.
>>>
>>> The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
>>> more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
>>> shading distinctions than serving the common good.
>>
>> Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.
>>
>> Probably.
>>
>> Do you have an example?
>
> Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...
I approved of the OJ verdict. When the prosecution couldn't even fram a
guilty man, the man deserves to go free.
CW wrote:
>
> You mean that the criminal didn't go down to a gun shop, fill out the
> paperwork, wait several days, have a criminal background check done,
> then come back and pick up his gun so he could go out and commit a
> crime? Damn criminals, you pass all these laws and they still don't
> do it right.
Nah - damned near impossible to get a pistol permit in NYC.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:02:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 10:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:50:27 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>
>> If she hadn't been armed, what do you suppose would have happened to
>> her and/or the baby? Wouldn't she have been gang raped and
>> burglarized, at the very least?
>>
>> Crimes:
>> stalking
>> breaking and entering with intent to rape
>> attempted burglary
>> Conspiracy to rape
>> Conspiracy to breaking and entering
>> Conspiracy to burglary
>
>I am talking about the guy standing out side waiting on his buddy not
>the guy that actually broke in. AND seriously the lady was scared that
>any of those things could have happened but we will never know what may
>have happened since nothing happened after she shot the guy. Hos only
>crime was breaking and entering. That is where it stops. You cannot
>continue to trump up, what could have happened, charges.
>
>
>>
>> Find a speaking weasel. He'll put those into actual legal terms for
>> ya, bud.
>>
>> These two were, in all probability, bad, bad men.
>
>Key word there, probability, not absolute. And thank goodness in this
>country we get a trial by jury rather than a shoot from the hip mob.
>
>AGAIN I am not defending the other guy simply stating that he is not
>liable for charges of something that did not happen.
>
>
Something DID happen. A man was killed while engaged in a crime. 2 men
were involved in the crime. If the surviving guy had run when the
now-dead guy started kicking in the door, complicity would be pretty
hard to prove. Because he hung around untill his buddy sprang a leak,
complicity is pretty easy to establish.
Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Leon, what would you do if you were an American soldier driving down a
>> road in Afghanistan and you saw an Arab standing there with an RPG,
>> looking right at you after his buddy shot his RPG?
>> Standing by the road isn't a crime, is it?
>
>I suspect that the Arab was shooting the RPG at the Taliban. IIRC we
>are not at war with the people of Western Asia or Northern Africa. I
>believe an Arab would be an ally. If he were not shooting at me I would
>asses the situation and probably continue on.
>
>What would you have done? Would have shot them cause the only good
>foreigner is a dead foreigner?
>
>Do you see how actual details and facts make thing look differently?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Worry is a misuse of imagination.
>> -- Dan Zadra
On 1/6/2012 8:58 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 1/6/2012 4:52 PM, Morgans wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote
>> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
>>
>> Yep. A Stevens savage pump 12 gauge. Stored with trigger lock key handy
>> and loaded.
>>
>> -- Jim in NC
>>
>>
>
> Amateur
> ================================================================
> Got to say though that if one was to have only one gun, you can't do
> better than a shotgun. Self defense, small game, big game. It'll do it
> all. Doesn't lend itself to pocket carry, though.
Agreed but I could cut the barrel as short a legally allowed. You might
need to spin around in a hall way quickly.
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:17:54 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>
>No Max, it's always horrible. Even though it is often justified,
>valiant, heroic, and wise, anytime man is forced to play God in deciding
>when another life shall end, it is also tragic.
>
In a case like this, the guy made a bad choice. IMO, he took his own
life by taking the risk of breaking into someone's home. I've never
killed anyone, never had the need or desire, but if it comes down to
me or you, easy decision.
On 1/7/2012 4:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 8:55 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>>> partner will
>>>>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was
>>>>>> killed?
>>>>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a
>>>>> crime.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
>>>>
>>>> Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Got it.
>>>
>>> "I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot one
>>> of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a little
>>> action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always carry a
>>> hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS knife,
>>> not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me and
>>> that would ave been a bummer!"
>>
>>
>> Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
>> stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
>> charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
>> murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
>> felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
>> murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
>> to and why isn't that person being charged too?
>>
>> And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
>> lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
>> there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
>> a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
>> do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
>> other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
>> There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
>> rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
>> with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
>> buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
>> that did not happen.
>>
> Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.
>>
And exactly what is wrong with our laws.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 09:45:24 -0700, "Max"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Mike M" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
> I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with
>ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then
>shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you
>have to protect yourself I'll reconsider.
>
>Mike M
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Remember; when every second counts the police are only moments away.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!, Max.
S/B: When every SECOND counts, the police are only MINUTES away.
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
On 07 Jan 2012 03:05:04 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> <g> OK, you understand that the criminals don't do that, so what
>> difference will gun registration make, Han? Why is that such a good
>> idea to you? I don't understand that. It only penalizes the GOOD
>> guys.
>
>You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still, why
>make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
Um, they're getting guns now, even -with- registration. Registration
only affects those who wish to do this legally and aboveboard.
You do realize that criminals can buy stolen guns and illegally
imported guns for less than the stores sell them, don't you?
(not all, but many)
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:02:02 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 10:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:50:27 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>
>> If she hadn't been armed, what do you suppose would have happened to
>> her and/or the baby? Wouldn't she have been gang raped and
>> burglarized, at the very least?
>>
>> Crimes:
>> stalking
>> breaking and entering with intent to rape
>> attempted burglary
>> Conspiracy to rape
>> Conspiracy to breaking and entering
>> Conspiracy to burglary
>
>I am talking about the guy standing out side waiting on his buddy not
>the guy that actually broke in. AND seriously the lady was scared that
>any of those things could have happened but we will never know what may
>have happened since nothing happened after she shot the guy. Hos only
>crime was breaking and entering. That is where it stops. You cannot
>continue to trump up, what could have happened, charges.
Look up the words "with intent to" in some legal cases. What the DA
says, goes. He'll have all the inner and outer sounds contained on the
very high-res 911 call tapes to work with.
>> Find a speaking weasel. He'll put those into actual legal terms for
>> ya, bud.
>>
>> These two were, in all probability, bad, bad men.
>
>Key word there, probability, not absolute. And thank goodness in this
>country we get a trial by jury rather than a shoot from the hip mob.
>
>AGAIN I am not defending the other guy simply stating that he is not
>liable for charges of something that did not happen.
Ideally, no. But it happens.
>> Leon, what would you do if you were an American soldier driving down a
>> road in Afghanistan and you saw an Arab standing there with an RPG,
>> looking right at you after his buddy shot his RPG?
>> Standing by the road isn't a crime, is it?
>
>I suspect that the Arab was shooting the RPG at the Taliban. IIRC we
>are not at war with the people of Western Asia or Northern Africa. I
>believe an Arab would be an ally. If he were not shooting at me I would
>asses the situation and probably continue on.
Oops, I meant to write "after his buddy shot his RPG at your convoy"
>What would you have done? Would have shot them cause the only good
>foreigner is a dead foreigner?
Damned straight. What do they think they're doing in my...um, oh. This
is -their- country...
>Do you see how actual details and facts make thing look differently?
Aww, you're no fun. We're sure kickin' this dead kangaroo around,
aren't we?
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:46:11 -0800, Steve Barker
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 7:55 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:36:59 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>>
>>>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>>>> how can you say?
>>>
>>> Common sense.
>>>
>>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>>
>>> Now do you see the logic?
>>
>> The last I heard, running a light isn't a felony.
>
>
>not yet. give obammy another 4 yrs......
Judging by the REP lineup, he's gonna have that chance. Ick!
I'd love to see a Paul/Perot or Thompson/Perot ticket.
The DEMs haven't yet come to their senses, but my sister is finally
accepting that AGWK isn't happening. There's hope there yet.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
> I think it's probably a good law in most cases.
In cases where it applies, yes.
That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios, to
bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Swingman wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 8:05 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
>>>>> rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
>>>>> unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
>>>>> millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
>>>>> society.
>>>>
>>>> The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably
>>>> spent more time in advancing their business model through blurring
>>>> of and shading distinctions than serving the common good.
>>>
>>> Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.
>>>
>>> Probably.
>>>
>>> Do you have an example?
>>
>> Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...
>
> And how could I have possibly missed the most egregious, self serving,
> asinine attempt by a "legal mind" at _blurring of distinctions_ than
> the former Asshat, disbarred lawyer prez:
>
> "That depends upon what the meaning of "is" is".
>
> There's plenty more where those came from ...
Yes, including just recently our Attorney General who said something like
"Whether something is a lie depends on the intent of the speaker."
Larry Jaques wrote the following:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:14:15 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:24:44 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men, one
>>> wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
>>> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>> Hey Larry, I agree with you but I read it was 2 people - 2 ain't
>> several :-).
>
> Mea culpa. I thought I heard 3 on her first statement.
>
>
>> I live in a state without a castle law. But you can bet I'd rather be
>> "judged by 12 than carried by 6".
>
> Amen to that.
>
>
>> And if he's outside - drag him inside!
>
> And let the forensics guys prove you guilty without a doubt.
> That'll instantly put the jury on their side and you in jail.
>
> --
> It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
> --Eleanor Roosevelt
We dragged him back inside to administer first aid!
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:56:07 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>In NY City a group of 5 is being held, because 1 of them shot and killed
>a policeman who had cornered him in the residence. The rest were
>lookouts and/or otherwise accomplices. They are all facing charges of
>murder of some kind now, although only 1 of them did the deed. He was
>arrested and let go in spite of a NC/SC arrest warrant, but the down
>south authorities didn't want to come and get him. Apparently that was
>enough reason to let him free, damn the judge involved. Oh, yes, the gun
>used was an illegal weapon.
>
>==============================================================
>
>You mean that the criminal didn't go down to a gun shop, fill out the
>paperwork, wait several days, have a criminal background check done, then
>come back and pick up his gun so he could go out and commit a crime? Damn
>criminals, you pass all these laws and they still don't do it right.
<g> OK, you understand that the criminals don't do that, so what
difference will gun registration make, Han? Why is that such a good
idea to you? I don't understand that. It only penalizes the GOOD
guys.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:17:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 7:59 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 6:36 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>>
>>>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>>>> how can you say?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Common sense.
>>>
>>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>>
>> No. because (a) the two of you were not involved in the commission of a
>> felony, and (b) it was not reasonable foreseeable that your failure to
>> buckle up would kill anyone.
>
>
>OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe that
>this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that go with it.
>
>I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed while
>committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder. If you were
>not there, there would be no murder. Your being there and him being
>killed as a result of self defense does not make you a murderer.
>
>You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun with
>out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight pulls his gun
>but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are charged with felony
>murder. Does that sound about right?
>
>
>
Unlikely - and if charged, unlikely it would stick.
Now, if you went in with him KNOWING he had a beef with the bartender
he intended to settle - yes, you could be charged - and convicted.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Now, if you were committing an armed robbery of a convenience store, and
>> the store clerk shot and killed your partner in crime, you convicted of
>> murder for the death of your partner. But for the chain of the events
>> resulting from your decision to commit a felony, no death would have
>> occurred, and it is reasonably foreseeable that your intended victim
>> might try to defend himself. Your intent to commit a felony transfers to
>> an intent to be responsible for the results, including someone's
>> potential death. There's no problem with holding you responsible for the
>> consequences of that decision.
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
Yeah, I posted a link to that one on Facebook earlier yesterday. One can only
imagine how badly it could have gone if she hadn't been armed.
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>
It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
didn't look very happy on the news last night.
Bill
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
>>
> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>
> Bill
Better traumatized than most of the possible alternatives I can think of.
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 1/5/12 8:50 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Better traumatized than most of the possible alternatives I can think of.
>
I agree with Steve.
Life is traumas, and her husband had just died around Christmas, so how
do know if she would've looked any different on camera if she'd just
wounded the guy?
Taking a human life is a horrible thing but that guy chose to die that
day when he chose to break and enter the home of another person.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
>>
> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>
> Bill
>
In the news clip I saw, she stated she was unhappy she had to shoot him
but in the same circumstances would do the same thing again. Good for
her! Am sure will take a little time to heal but look at the money she
just saved the state, not only this time but 4 years down the road when
he would have been back on the streets. Personally think the state owes
her some of that savings.
On 1/5/2012 12:31 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" wrote ...
>> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>
>> Horseshit!
>>
> Agreed.
>
> There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days earlier.
> What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies if she did
> not shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct prosecutor came
> after her? Some self defense victims are ruined financially with having
> to defend their actions. That would certainly be traumatic.
>
> Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for 21
> minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time protecting
> her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot who lost it and
> somebody died because they did not do the right thing and act in a
> manner that protected life. She did the exact right thing. And for that,
> she should be proud of herself. She was a mamma bear protecting her cub.
> I am certain that any other kind of response (or non response) would be
> terribly traumatic. Not only for her, but for every one who knew her.
> Again, she did the right thing.
>
> The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a woman.
> I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago. Long before it
> became socially acceptable to do such things. There is tremendous
> pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight back, don't
> make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to women, but it is a
> green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to prey on "helpless"
> women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A .38".
>
> Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted, I
> can tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a
> victim. The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who
> wanted to move on and were willing to do whatever to see that this sort
> of thing never occurred again. The other category was much more tragic.
> These poor women basically crawled into a paranoid hole and never came
> out again. They became recluses, depressed, etc. I think today, there
> would be more support for them. But the fact is that a large number of
> victims never live normal lives again.
>
> Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply does
> not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a cornerstone of
> liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm the populace.
> Apparently creating safe working conditions for criminals has a higher
> social purpose. This woman did exactly the right thing. She should be
> commended and rewarded in some fashion. Certainly she should be given
> some support of some kind. If more women were like her, there would be
> less problems in this country.
>
> And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
> use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
> outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty quickly.
> They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It would be
> better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions for criminals.
>
> End of rant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
You are right, but it is still a tragedy for her. She just lost her
husband and has had no time to even start recovering from that, and
now she has the knowledge that she has killed a man on top of that.
She did the right thing, but it is still a big tragedy to have that
piled on top of her already huge load.
Bill
On 1/5/12 10:07 PM, Max wrote:
>
>
> "-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Taking a human life is a horrible
>
>
> -MIKE-
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Uh........................Not always.
> Max, 1st Cavalry Division, Korea, Aug. 1950 - Aug. 1951.
>
>
No Max, it's always horrible. Even though it is often justified,
valiant, heroic, and wise, anytime man is forced to play God in deciding
when another life shall end, it is also tragic.
I truly thank you for your service, but I'm certain you don't look upon
what you had to honorably do with folly.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:24:44 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men, one
> wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
Hey Larry, I agree with you but I read it was 2 people - 2 ain't
several :-).
I live in a state without a castle law. But you can bet I'd rather be
"judged by 12 than carried by 6".
And if he's outside - drag him inside!
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Gill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>didn't look very happy on the news last night.
Plus, having her husband die on xmas day, just a few days prior, she's
going to be in therapy for a while, I expect (if she can afford it.)
Having basically the whole country saying "well done", will probably help
a bit.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>> be charged with felony murder.
>
>I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:55:29 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 5:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife
>> breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it?
>> Yes.
>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
>
>By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a
>violent physical or verbal attack.
Holding a large knife while kicking your door in isn't violent or
physical? Wasn't he screaming at her to open the door, too? Add
verbal attack.
>The legal definition is similar to TB III glue claiming to be water
>proof, which by common definition it is not.
That's up to the DA to go after Sears for horsepower figs and TB (and
especially Thompson's) for waterproofing claims.
>The sheep no longer have common sense and go along with what they are
>told.
That's half the reason the U.S. is in all these messes today.
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
On 1/8/2012 2:43 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:55:29 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2012 5:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>> We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife
>>> breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it?
>>> Yes.
>>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
>>
>> By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a
>> violent physical or verbal attack.
>
> Holding a large knife while kicking your door in isn't violent or
> physical? Wasn't he screaming at her to open the door, too? Add
> verbal attack.
I believe that you are introducing some fiction here.
>
>> The legal definition is similar to TB III glue claiming to be water
>> proof, which by common definition it is not.
>
> That's up to the DA to go after Sears for horsepower figs and TB (and
> especially Thompson's) for waterproofing claims.
>
>
>> The sheep no longer have common sense and go along with what they are
>> told.
>
> That's half the reason the U.S. is in all these messes today.
Yes, the attorneys have twisted the meaning of everything to fit their
needs.
Can't speak about a home invasion, but I personally have experienced, in
a large eastern center-city neighborhood, police no-show to a 911 call for
firearms being discharged on the street outside my (former) home.
--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>do see the stark difference?
>
>You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
how can you say?
--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:15:04 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>And if he's outside - drag him inside!
>
> And let the forensics guys prove you guilty without a doubt. That'll
> instantly put the jury on their side and you in jail.
Actually, that was advice from a southern policeman about 50 years ago.
It wouldn't work today :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:34:44 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:
> The dude that went in got what he deserved. The other guy did not and
> he should not be responsible for the fate of the first guy.
At least in some states, if you are involved in a felony and that felony
results in a death, you are responsible for that death. Period.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:21:17 -0600, Leon wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 9:39 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-
intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner
>>> will
>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>
>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>
>> Asshat lawyers ...
>>
>>
>
> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No murder
> was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to pay for
> killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on the young
> woman.
Leon, I hope you read the responses explaining what felony murder is.
You may not agree with it, but that's the law. You wanna' commit a
felony? Them's the risks you take.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 1/6/12 9:05 PM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> <g> OK, you understand that the criminals don't do that, so what
>> difference will gun registration make, Han? Why is that such a good
>> idea to you? I don't understand that. It only penalizes the GOOD
>> guys.
>
> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still, why
> make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
>
Why make it harder for upstanding citizen to exercise their
constitutional rights?
Gun control laws have done nothing to deter criminals from using gun in
crimes, nor have they cut down on the crime rate. The blatantly obvious
fact that is obvious to everyone except liberal lawmakers is that
criminals who use guns to commit crimes overwhelmingly use illegally
obtained guns to commit the crimes.
All those laws do it inconvenience upstanding citizens and make it more
expensive for them to own and operate their own guns.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>>> loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>>> door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>>> neighbor across the street.
>>>
>>> After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>>> in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
>>
>> That's entirely illogical, Swingy.
>
>Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
>walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
>about it. I have ...
Maybe you should take the blade off of your table saw too...
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>
>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>
>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>> how can you say?
>>
>>
>
>Common sense.
>
>You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>out wearing a seat belt????
>
>
>Now do you see the logic?
No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>> the young woman.
>>
>> Better check your definitions.
>>
>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>
>>
>
>I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to
the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.
Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.
:wq
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Why is swai (farm raised only) more sustainable than tilapia (farm
> raised only), Han? This I gotta hear. ;)
Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where?
This is possibly a better guide:
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx
But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 08 Jan 2012 15:26:58 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08 Jan 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.
>>>
>>>Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the
>>>obligatory bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was
>>>out of my mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just
>>>microwaved with some kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was
>>>delicious, and held up well to warming up ...
>>
>> I wonder how much Agent Orange is left in the mud over there in swai
>> country...but, yeah, swai is pretty good. Why is some tilapi sweet
>> and mellow, the other very fishy? Is it just old fish before it's
>> frozen?
>
>I switched from tilapia to swai because of price and apparent greater
>sustainability. And it also tastes better, IMO.
Why is swai (farm raised only) more sustainable than tilapia (farm
raised only), Han? This I gotta hear. ;)
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 4:44 PM, Larry W wrote:
>> Can't speak about a home invasion, but I personally have experienced, in
>> a large eastern center-city neighborhood, police no-show to a 911 call for
>> firearms being discharged on the street outside my (former) home.
>>
>>
>
>Good thing no one killed, having personally experienced that crime you
>would have been lawfully charged with murder.
Now that's funny!
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:
> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
> wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a piss.
He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide intent
and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08 Jan 2012 21:41:15 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where?
>
> Now that tilapia is US farm raises, swai, the import, is out. ;)
>
>>This is possibly a better guide:
>>
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx
>>But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway.
>
> Ha! I just got done reading the articles there myself. There are
> lots of fish with high mercury levels shown there.
>
> Both tilapia and swai have been running between $3.50 and $5/lb here,
> usually within 50 cents of each other in price. It's all either
> frozen or previously frozen here.
>
> Something I haven't tried yet is a swaiburger.
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Seafood-Doctor-Inc/177452212299551
> I may try one tomorrow. I'll be passing through Medford.
Great, in a few days I'll be nest to Medford, MA
;-)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 08 Jan 2012 21:41:15 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Why is swai (farm raised only) more sustainable than tilapia (farm
>> raised only), Han? This I gotta hear. ;)
>
>Yep, sounds weird, right? But that's what I read somewhere, but where?
Now that tilapia is US farm raises, swai, the import, is out. ;)
>This is possibly a better guide:
>http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx
>But swai is definitely cheaper than tilapia, for now anyway.
Ha! I just got done reading the articles there myself. There are
lots of fish with high mercury levels shown there.
Both tilapia and swai have been running between $3.50 and $5/lb here,
usually within 50 cents of each other in price. It's all either
frozen or previously frozen here.
Something I haven't tried yet is a swaiburger.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Seafood-Doctor-Inc/177452212299551
I may try one tomorrow. I'll be passing through Medford.
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:54:20 -0600, Leon wrote:
> The prescribed punishment for what he confessed to, not a witch hunt
> punishment. If this liberal law and lawyers thought that they had half
> a chance of nailing the woman for the murder and not create public
> outrage the other idiot would probably be sentenced with 90 days of
> public service.
I wondered if you were trolling, Leon. I'm not wondering any more.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:56:55 +0000, Han wrote:
> To each his own. I have no objection to you smoking or whatever the
> lesser stuff, as long as you don't commit crimes getting it, or drive
> while under the influence.
That's probably the way it should be handled - DUI. Or as an aggravating
factor of any crime committed while UI.
That way we could avoid making criminals rich.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
>>>>> murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
>>>>> pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
>>>>> the young woman.
>>>>
>>>> Better check your definitions.
>>>>
>>>> Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
>>>> Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
>>>> the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
>>>> be the felon (as in defense of self).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.
>>
>> A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
>> tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
>> He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
>> testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to
>> the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.
>>
>> Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
>> logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
>> evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
>> in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.
>
>Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
>wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a piss.
>Hey dude! Why are you kicking in your door??? BANG? The friend is
>dead and you are up for murder.
Again, that will be for the jury to decide, not rec.woodworking.
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:29:27 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> Recall the gal in Oklahoma who recently blew away a berserker breaking
> into her house? The one where the 911 dispatcher said "... do what you
> have to do..."?
>
> It took the cops TWENTY-ONE MINUTES to respond!. To a home invasion in
> progress.
The courts have held that police have no responsibility to prevent
crimes. It could be that that extends to responding to a crime in
progress in a timely manner, but I'm guessing.
Their primary responsibility is capturing a perpetrator *after* a crime
has been committed.
Preventing a crime appears to have been left up to us the citizens, but
of course, with rare exceptions, we're not allowed to harm a criminal to
do so.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"m II" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Well demonstrated USanian ignorance Mikey!!
>
> Perfect!
>
> Thanks
>
> ---------------
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> I have no idea what a "USanian" is - perhaps if you were to write with
> generally accepted language your mindless ramblings might at least fall
> into
> a context.
>
> As for the Right to Bear Arms - have not seen that put forth by anyone but
> you. Keep trying - at some point if you keep repeating irrelevant
> garbage,
> someone might just take you up on the topic. Unfortunately for you - no
> one
> is speaking about the right to keep and bear arms.
> Obsessive compulsive would apply better to an idiot that continues to
> interject irrelevant comments into a conversation where the topic of his
> babble has not previously been introduced.
>
No worries, Mate!
Mike loves to pull 'stupid' out of his arse frequently to gain ground in a
losing argument.
The boy jus' won't listen to advice from real people. [snarf]
--
KKK
On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>
>>
> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
Horseshit!
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:04:19 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 6:52 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was
>>>>>> armed with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of
>>>>>> those paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's BATF?
>>>>
>>>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>>>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually in Waco, Texas, it is the TABC. Tobacco, Alcohol, and
>>> Beverage, Commission. IIRC there is no Bureau.
>>
>> Both Waco and Ruby Ridge were Federal involvement - BATF.
>
>I stand corrected. I was thinking Texas authority only.
Those were two of the very darkest and most damning episodes for our
federal law enforcement officials.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:17:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>
>I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed while
>committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder. If you were
>not there, there would be no murder. Your being there and him being
>killed as a result of self defense does not make you a murderer.
>
>You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun with
>out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight pulls his gun
>but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are charged with felony
>murder. Does that sound about right?
>
Perhaps the guy being charged was the instigator and brought the now
dead guy along, causing his death. I don't know if he was. I was
surprised to hear that he would be charged.
As for the bar, they did not go with the intention of committing a
crime. No reason to charge the friend. If they went with the
intention of robbing the bar and/or the patrons, the circumstances and
reason to be in the place are entirely different. Co-conspirators are
usually dealt with in the commission of a crime as they both planned
and executed together.
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:26:23 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>
>>>
>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>It is sad but probably the best out come whether she realizes it now or not.
Ayup. Both guys (dead and jailed) probably won't be ruining anyone
else's lives in the near future. And she proved to herself that she
can stand up to anything life presents to her, even without her
husband. It was a rough lesson, but a good one.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
Leon wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The bothersome thing to me is the BATF killing a woman who was
>>>> armed with a deadly six-poop baby, in an effort to enforce one of
>>>> those paperwork laws that Han loves so much.
>>>
>>> What's BATF?
>>
>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually in Waco, Texas, it is the TABC. Tobacco, Alcohol, and
> Beverage, Commission. IIRC there is no Bureau.
TABC is the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
Do the USA not have "accomplice" charges for these crimes?
------------
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
There is that word IF again. If it actually happened then yes the out
side guy should be charged with the crime that actually happened.
Because one one was actually murdered he should not be brought up on
murder charges.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:11:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 8:47 AM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Involuntary manslaughter.
>>>
>>> Works for me.
>>>
>>
>> That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
>> I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.
>
>Who was murdered? If a police officer shoots a bank robber inside the
>bank are the customers that may have spoken to the robber, before he
>pulled out his gun, accessories to the murder?
Um, perhaps the law considers it a felony murder but lets the doer off
the hook with a self-defense plea, while convicting conspirators. We
shall see.
>Until we actually know the facts lets not guess at what did or may have
>happened.
Facts? We doan need no steenkin' facts! Thees eez USENET, señor!
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On 1/5/2012 7:36 PM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Also known as
>> the WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out) bandits.
>
> Waco was a very bad job, but that bunch seemed quite nuts to me. YMMV.
> Anyway, to me it didn't seem necessary to kill them at that time.
What other time would have been better?
<g, d & r>
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Han wrote:
>
> You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful. Still,
> why make it even easier for criminals to get guns?
Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of us
should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.
Here's how a criminal gets his gun:
* Criminal #1: "Here's the money."
* Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."
Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much
different, but you get the idea.)
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:15:37 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 11:14 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:24:44 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men, one
>>> wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
>>> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>>
>> Hey Larry, I agree with you but I read it was 2 people - 2 ain't
>> several :-).
>
>2 can appear as several if you are cross eyed or drunk. ;~)
Wouldn't 2 appear to be 4 then?
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:30:46 -0600, Bill Gill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 1/5/2012 12:31 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
--snip of fine rant--
>You are right, but it is still a tragedy for her. She just lost her
>husband and has had no time to even start recovering from that, and
>now she has the knowledge that she has killed a man on top of that.
>She did the right thing, but it is still a big tragedy to have that
>piled on top of her already huge load.
Bill, I think it may have been a good thing, a freak chance, to have
happen to her. It sure ripped her out of her mourning for her husband.
It probably kick started her life again, too, weighing the value of
everything left in her life. She'll likely be an even better mother
as a result. (How's that for a positive spin on it?)
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 1/7/2012 7:33 AM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>
>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>
>>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>>> how can you say?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Common sense.
>>
>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>
>>
>> Now do you see the logic?
>
> No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
> of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
> misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
>
It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
some way for being with him.
On 1/6/2012 10:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:36:59 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>
>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>
>>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>>> how can you say?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Common sense.
>>
>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>
>>
>> Now do you see the logic?
> No FELONY involved.
E#exactly!
On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>>
>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>> do see the stark difference?
>>
>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>
>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>
> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
> robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
> is shot and killed.
>
> Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
> you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
> even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
> with the engine running.
>
> The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
> committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
> act that any member undertakes.
>
>
Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
go to jail responsible for his death.
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>
>>>
>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>
>Horseshit!
1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
Han wrote:
>
> I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
> licensing people for the use of them.
>
> This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
> prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
> has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
> must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being
> didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady
> and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as soon as
> she can.
Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life unless she
was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even then). She would not
be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her life by the actions of the
squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill you," he could just as easily been
inclined to merely rape her. She didn't know, hence she was guilty of at
least manslaughter.
What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the 'phone
to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction where it would
take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a "home invasion in
progress" call.
I take that back. There have been several reports of UK ambulance drivers
declining to respond to an emergency call because they were on break.
On 1/6/2012 9:01 PM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> lots of snippage
>
>> OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe
>> that this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that go
>> with it.
>>
>> I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed while
>> committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder. If you
>> were not there, there would be no murder. Your being there and him
>> being killed as a result of self defense does not make you a murderer.
>
> Even in a liberal state (I think) like New York, they are charging the 4
> friends of the perp who killed a policeman during the commission of a
> burglary with murder of some kind. They were active participants in the
> robbery, not just lookouts. Slightly, but perhaps significantly
> different. sorry for the wrap
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/nyregion/at-scene-of-brooklyn-robbery-
> a-police-dept-veteran-is-fatally-shot.html?scp=5&sq=figoski&st=cse>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/7dmxywd
>
>> You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun with
>> out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight pulls his
>> gun but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are charged with
>> felony murder. Does that sound about right?
>
> This is different. The 2 go into the bar to have drinks, not to have a
> fight.
>
You assume that they go in for drinks but your buddy is taking in a gun
to even a score.
On 1/6/2012 10:06 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:54:20 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ... read
>>>> the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand that this
>>>> particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor does it fit with
>>>> the crafted distinction in all States that have a felony murder statute.
>>>>
>>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>>
>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>
>> The prescribed punishment for what he confessed to, not a witch hunt
>> punishment. If this liberal law and lawyers thought that they had half
>> a chance of nailing the woman for the murder and not create public
>> outrage the other idiot would probably be sentenced with 90 days of
>> public service.
>
> Free to go out and find another woman to rape in 3 months, eh?
> That's an interesting sense of justice you have there, dude.
It happens all the time and really what exactly did he do? He was out
side and did nothing at all IIRC from the details of the link. From
what I understand he did confess to something that has yet to be
indicated. Perhaps they were tagging street signs and he thought his
buddy was going to tag some ones door.
On 06 Jan 2012 02:34:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 05 Jan 2012 22:31:46 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and
>>>>> licensing people for the use of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to
>>>>> prove it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and
>>>>> has the right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it
>>>>> must be traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human
>>>>> being didn't live according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to
>>>>> the lady and I hope she can get on with her life as best she can as
>>>>> soon as she can.
>>>>
>>>> Then live with the fact that in some benighted (i.e., liberal)
>>>> jurisdictions, she did NOT have the right to take a human life
>>>> unless she was certain her life was in danger (and maybe not even
>>>> then). She would not be allowed to presume an imminent threat to her
>>>> life by the actions of the squint. Unless he said "I'm going to kill
>>>> you," he could just as easily been inclined to merely rape her. She
>>>> didn't know, hence she was guilty of at least manslaughter.
>>>
>>>I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
>>>under real imminent threat of being harmed,
>>
>> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men,
>> one wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
>> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>
>I indeed didn't listen to the whole story. I got the message almost
>right away. I am not a lawyer who has to look at all sides. I believe
>that indeed as you stated she was in imminent danger. And I am
>definitely NOT saying she did wrong, liberal as I am <grin>.
<g> Great to hear!
>>>and I did live in Mass. when there
>>>was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a home
>>>invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
>>>acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
>>>which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
>>>basement, she should have used that.
>>
>> So his (possible) accomplice could have caught her instead? Right.
>
>I lived in Mass in the early 70's - a long time ago, and my memory is
>fading. If you want to research the details, go ahead. Not sure there
>was or could have been an accomplice in this case.
That's why I put (possible) in there. Many of the home invasions (and
hot prowls, where they know people are home when they break in) are
done by groups, so they cover the house and exits, using them as
entries when the scared homeowners try to flee.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 1/7/2012 2:36 PM, Han wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
>>>> wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a
>>>> piss.
>>>
>>> He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide
>>> intent and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).
>>>
>>
>> Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I
>> think that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that
>> some one said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems
>> to be common knowledge only here in this group. ;~)
>
> "Prosecutors have instead charged the intruder's alleged accomplice, 29-
> year-old Dustin Stewart, with first-degree murder in the death of his
> friend, Justin Shane Martin, 24."
> A news report, so not authoritative ...
> http://tinyurl.com/6t4ggnq
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-mom-face-charges-victims-accomplice/story?
> id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U
>
Humm... we'll now see if it makes it to court.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 6:34 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
>
>I only own one ... a Remington Model 11 20 ga which my father gave me
>when I was nine. No shells are in the house.
>
>My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>neighbor across the street.
>
>After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
I can follow your logic. I used to have a gun and one day I found
myself in a situation where I thought I was going to have to use it to
save a friend's ass. Fortunately I didn't have to use it, but it
scared the crap out of me when I realized all of the ramifications of
using it. I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with
ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then
shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you
have to protect yourself I'll reconsider.
Mike M
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:52 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>
>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>
>>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>>
>> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
>> robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
>> is shot and killed.
>>
>> Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
>> you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
>> even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
>> with the engine running.
>>
>> The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
>> committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
>> act that any member undertakes.
>>
>>
>
>Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
>deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
>go to jail responsible for his death.
Prove intent.
Reasonable doubt.
Get a good lawyer
On 1/6/2012 7:55 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:36:59 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>
>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>
>>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>>> how can you say?
>>
>> Common sense.
>>
>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>
>> Now do you see the logic?
>
> The last I heard, running a light isn't a felony.
not yet. give obammy another 4 yrs......
>
> --
> Worry is a misuse of imagination.
> -- Dan Zadra
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
Somebody has to pay the damages to "fix" them so guilt has to be established
established. Legal penalties may be dropped and are another matter for bad
behaviour.
------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Which is what my last statement covers. The courts get to make the
final decision. Sometimes the decision is "shit happens through
nobody's fault" and the verdict is "not guilty", or guilty and
suspended sentace, or guilty and minimum penalty - etc.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:13:31 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 9:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On 07 Jan 2012 14:47:05 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>>>> partner will be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
>>>>>>>>> ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
>>>>>>>>> commonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
>>>>>>>> someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
>>>>>>> read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
>>>>>>> that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
>>>>>>> does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
>>>>>>> felony murder statute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>>>>>
>>>>> Involuntary manslaughter.
>>>>
>>>> Works for me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
>>> I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.
>>
>> You might be right. Perhaps the OK DA/judge/jury will find the truth
>> and act accordingly.
>
>Exactly and throw the case out because there was no murder. And
>accordingly remind the prosecuting attorney that you can not win on a
>charge that does not fit the crime.
Yeah, I wonder how the law deals with a death but no murder for self
defense, with co-conspirators, etc. I guess we'll see.
Back to hippity hopping along.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:34:47 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 4:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 8:55 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>>>> partner will
>>>>>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>>>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was
>>>>>>> killed?
>>>>>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a
>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Got it.
>>>>
>>>> "I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot one
>>>> of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a little
>>>> action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always carry a
>>>> hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS knife,
>>>> not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me and
>>>> that would ave been a bummer!"
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
>>> stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
>>> charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
>>> murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
>>> felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
>>> murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
>>> to and why isn't that person being charged too?
>>>
>>> And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
>>> lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
>>> there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
>>> a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
>>> do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
>>> other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
>>> There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
>>> rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
>>> with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
>>> buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
>>> that did not happen.
>>>
>> Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.
>>>
>And exactly what is wrong with our laws.
>
>
No. it is what is RIGHT about our (or in this case, YOUR -) laws.
Protect the innocent while they are still alive, and punish the guilty
BEFORE they kill someone.
There is assault, and assault causing bodily harm, and assault and
battery, and aggravated assault.
Theatening harm is assault.
Following through on the assault is battery, and assault with intent
to harm vs intimidate is aggravated assault - and a felony even if you
never get the chance to do any physical harm.
If someone - anyone - including YOU, is killed as a result of an
"aggravated assault", felony murder has occured., and anyone involved
in that felonious assault is guilty of the offence. Period. That is
the law in the USA, Canada, Britain, and most of the civilized world
- and that is PART of what makes it a "civilized " world.
I know it is only WIKI, but here it is from that source:
In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence. The term
is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The
specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to
an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal
violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused
by an immediate show of force.[1][2] Assault in some US
jurisdictions[which?] is defined more broadly still as any intentional
physical contact with another person without their consent;[3][4][5]
but in the majority of the United States and in England & Wales and
all other common law jurisdictions in the world, this is defined
instead as battery. Some jurisdictions have incorporated the
definition of civil assault into the definition of the crime making it
a criminal assault to intentionally cause another person to apprehend
a harmful or offensive contact.
or from another online dictionary:
assault[uh-sawlt] Example Sentences Origin as·sault /?'s?lt/
Show Spelled[uh-sawlt] Show IPA
noun
1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2. Law . an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer
to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a
stone or club in a threatening manner.
3. Military . the stage of close combat in an attack.
4. rape1 .
verb (used with object)
5. to make an assault upon; attack; assail.
or from the legal dictionary at fthefreedictionary.com:
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an
apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an
apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a
tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.
Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort
Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault
consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions
throughout the United States are not substantially different from the
common-law definition.
ElementsGenerally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act
intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that
causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone
are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some
action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere
threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a
raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension
of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be
specific intentâif the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of
harmful or offensive contact in the victimâor general intentâif he or
she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition,
the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a
reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who
holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since
it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension
in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.
In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a
Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not
suffice for this form of assault.
There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true
apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of
injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such
apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the
victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be
sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to
an adult might not.
Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the
danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted
battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping
victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the
victim would not be aware of the possible harm.
Aggravated AssaultAn aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a
felony, is committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely
frighten the victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those
accompanied by an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a
dangerous weapon is aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious
harm. Pointing an unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual
is not considered an aggravated assault.
Columbia Encyclopedia:
assault
assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use
violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to
another. If violent contact actually occurs, the offense of battery
has been committed; modern criminal statutes often combine assault and
battery. An assault may be both a crime and a tort, for which the
party assaulted may sue for damages; the victim's freedom, as to move
or remain at peace, must have been impinged on. Modern criminal
statutes recognize certain degrees of assault (e.g., with intent to
kill, to do great bodily harm, to rape) as aggravated assaults and
felonies, though simple assault remains, as at common law, a
misdemeanor. Either malevolence or recklessness (as in driving a car
in reckless disregard of human life) may constitute the intent
necessary to assault in most jurisdictions.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/assault#ixzz1ipPAvnSj
West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
Assault
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
At common law, an intentional act by one person that creates an
apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an
apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a
tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.
Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort
law. There is, however, an additional criminal law category of assault
consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful battery.
Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions
throughout the United States are not substantially different from the
common-law definition.
Elements
Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act
intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that
causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone
are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some
action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere
threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a
raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension
of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be
specific intent â if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension
of harmful or offensive contact in the victim â or general intent â if
he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In
addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially
certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A
defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite
intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce
an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is
irrelevant.
In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a
specific intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not
suffice for this form of assault.
There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true
apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of
injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such
apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the
victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be
sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to
an adult might not.
Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the
danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted
battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping
victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the
victim would not be aware of the possible harm.
Aggravated Assault
An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is
committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the
victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by
an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a dangerous weapon is
aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious harm. Pointing an
unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual is not considered
an aggravated assault.
Punishment
A defendant adjudged to have committed civil assault is liable for
damages. The question of the amount that should be awarded to the
victim is determined by a jury. Compensatory damages, which are aimed
at compensating the victim for the injury, are common. Nominal
damages, a small sum awarded for the invasion of a right even though
there has been no substantial injury, may be awarded. In some cases,
courts allow punitive damages, which are designed to punish the
defendant for the wrongful conduct.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/assault#ixzz1ipPOLxjn
>
>
Leon wrote:
>>
>> We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife
>> breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it?
>> Yes.
>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
>
> By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a
> violent physical or verbal attack.
>
> The legal definition is similar to TB III glue claiming to be water
> proof, which by common definition it is not.
>
>
When I went to law school, the definition drummed into us for "assault" was
"The serious threat to inflict death or serious bodily harm, coupled with
the present ability to carry out that threat." Some jurisdictions add the
term "battery" as the actual infliction of harm.
Now you might think the definition is "legal fiction," but the "legal"
definition, and use, is hundreds of years old. The vernacular definition may
have changed, but the legal definition endures. So, in essence, you're
equating the classic definition of "assault" with the slang you learned in
grammar school.
Here's a more poignant example: The King James version of the Bible has
Jesus saying "Suffer the little children to come unto Me."
Does that mean the children should be whipped or otherwise "suffer" in some
way?
No. In the 17th century, the word "suffer" meant "permit" or "allow" or
"give permission." (Think "suffragettes"). Today, the word "suffer" means
"experience pain or discomfort." Bottom line, the current use of the word
differs from the original, but the original (i.e., the Bible) continues with
its own purpose.
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:32:09 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 9:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:52 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
>>>>> what should be the even hand of justice.
>>>>
>>>> Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
>>>> robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
>>>> is shot and killed.
>>>>
>>>> Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
>>>> you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
>>>> even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
>>>> with the engine running.
>>>>
>>>> The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
>>>> committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
>>>> act that any member undertakes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
>>> deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
>>> go to jail responsible for his death.
>>
>> That's where the law can fall down. It leaves it up to the DA whether
>> or not to prosecute the driver as a getaway conspirator or just let
>> him go as an unsuspecting friend.
>>
>> In places like Gnu Yawk Shitty, with foaming-at-the-mouth liberals
>> like Bloomberg and his pet DA, you're hung before you're arrested.
>
>Now you are seeing the light, I think. ;~) We would like for the other
>guy to get the worse punishment, that would make us all feel good. But
The second perp need to be punished, and heavily.
>not actually knowing all the facts does he really deserve it?
If I were the DA, I'd have that mindset going into it, then let the
facts bring it into focus. I'd want to get the guy on tape as to what
his mindset was at the time of the incident. Who brought whom into
the picture, what they were planning, etc. If he wanted to rape the
woman and got the dumb moose to break the door in for him, I'd want
him hung (or better.)
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:34:47 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 4:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 8:55 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>>>> partner will
>>>>>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>>>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was
>>>>>>> killed?
>>>>>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a
>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Got it.
>>>>
>>>> "I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot one
>>>> of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a little
>>>> action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always carry a
>>>> hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS knife,
>>>> not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me and
>>>> that would ave been a bummer!"
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
>>> stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
>>> charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
>>> murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
>>> felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
>>> murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
>>> to and why isn't that person being charged too?
>>>
>>> And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
>>> lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
>>> there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
>>> a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
>>> do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
>>> other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
>>> There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
>>> rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
>>> with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
>>> buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
>>> that did not happen.
>>>
>> Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.
>>>
>And exactly what is wrong with our laws.
We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife
breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it?
Yes.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is
committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the
victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by
an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a dangerous weapon is
aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious harm. Pointing an
unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual is not considered
an aggravated assault.
and
assault noun act of hostility, aggression, aggressive action,
assailment, attack, besiegement, encounter, incursion, incursus,
injury, intrusion, irruption, offense, onset, onset with force,
onslaught, oppugnatio, siege, strike, sudden attack, violation of
another's rights
Associated concepts: aggravated assault, assault and battery, assault
with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to commit a felony, assault
with intent to commit murder, assault with intent to maim, assault
with intent to rape, assault with intent to rob, battery, felonious
assault, simple assault.
Pick any six. ;)
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:42:04 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:45:49 -0500, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>complicity is pretty easy to establish.
>> >>Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.
>> >
>> >I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
>> >the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
>> >Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
>> >finding.
>> >
>> >I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
>> >a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
>> >not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
>> >the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
>> >me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
>> >just one method they use to find more information.
>> And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
>> of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
>> you WERE guilty of "careless driving".
>> Depending on the circumstances, the charge would LIKELY be dismissed,
>> and if not you would quite LIKELY be found not guilty - but by the
>> letter of the law - if you were sick when you got behind the wheel,
>> you WERE guilty of the charge. That's just the way the law works.
>> Due care and attention would preclude you from driving if you knew you
>> were not physically and mentally up to the task, or if you reasonably
>> should have known.
>
>However if you were sick to the point of passing out you might also have
>been in a mentally impaired state and incapable of making such a
>judgment, and it is difficult to argue effectively that one becomes sick
>by intent or has any other kind of volition in the matter.
>
>One problem with the current legal system is that it doesn't have any
>place for "shit happens through nobody's fault".
>
>
>> That is up to the court to decide from the evidence brought forward
>> IF it gets to trial.
>
Which is what my last statement covers. The courts get to make the
final decision. Sometimes the decision is "shit happens through
nobody's fault" and the verdict is "not guilty", or guilty and
suspended sentace, or guilty and minimum penalty - etc.
On 1/7/2012 5:40 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:34:47 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2012 4:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2012 8:55 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
>>>>>>>>>>> partner will
>>>>>>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>>>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>>>>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was
>>>>>>>> killed?
>>>>>>>> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a
>>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot one
>>>>> of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a little
>>>>> action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always carry a
>>>>> hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS knife,
>>>>> not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me and
>>>>> that would ave been a bummer!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
>>>> stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
>>>> charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
>>>> murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
>>>> felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
>>>> murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
>>>> to and why isn't that person being charged too?
>>>>
>>>> And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
>>>> lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
>>>> there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
>>>> a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
>>>> do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
>>>> other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
>>>> There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
>>>> rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
>>>> with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
>>>> buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
>>>> that did not happen.
>>>>
>>> Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.
>>>>
>> And exactly what is wrong with our laws.
>
> We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife
> breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it?
> Yes.
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
By concocted Legal definition only!!! Actual common definition, a : a
violent physical or verbal attack.
The legal definition is similar to TB III glue claiming to be water
proof, which by common definition it is not.
The sheep no longer have common sense and go along with what they are
told.
On 1/7/2012 8:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:34:47 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>
>>
>>
>
I simply do not agree.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 06:34:32 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/5/2012 8:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>>>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>>>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>>>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>>>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>>
>>> Horseshit!
>>
>> 1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?
>
>Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
Unfortunately, many people do. They get one, have the single training
session (IF their state requires that) and sock "it" away for a rainy
day. The rest of us have fun with "them", right?
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:55:16 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/7/2012 7:33 AM, Larry W wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>>>>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>>>>> do see the stark difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>>>>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>>>>
>>>> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
>>>> how can you say?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Common sense.
>>>
>>> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
>>> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
>>> out wearing a seat belt????
>>>
>>>
>>> Now do you see the logic?
>>
>> No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
>> of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
>> misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
>>
>
>It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
>some way for being with him.
Only if "felonious intent" - like trying to ram someone, or escape
police pursuit.
Bill Gill wrote:
> You are right, but it is still a tragedy for her. She just lost her
> husband and has had no time to even start recovering from that, and
> now she has the knowledge that she has killed a man on top of that.
> She did the right thing, but it is still a big tragedy to have that
> piled on top of her already huge load.
>
What makes you think it was a tragedy?
For all we know, she's giving and getting high-fives from everybody she
meets!
She might even get the CSI photo of the corpse and put it on her next year's
Christmas cards.
The good ole' USanian "Right to Bear Arms" obsession again?
I understand if the gun advocates got their way it would legal to shoot
people for looking at them funny, too. Somebody has to stop this guns
out of control nonsense before it gets too far out of hand.
It should be the same as the right to bear a Taser. You have to
experience the taste of one first.
Seems fairly obvious the gun advocates display obsessive compulsive
disorders. It would be comparable in obsession to the ISLAMic advocates
seen here occasionally.
------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That of course, would be after he did his criminal act. So - your
registration would do nothing to make things better. As for a definite
difference in the prosecution, why is that not the case where
registration
is already in place?
On 1/9/2012 8:05 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
>>>> rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
>>>> unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
>>>> millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
>>>> society.
>>>
>>> The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
>>> more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
>>> shading distinctions than serving the common good.
>>
>> Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.
>>
>> Probably.
>>
>> Do you have an example?
>
> Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...
And how could I have possibly missed the most egregious, self serving,
asinine attempt by a "legal mind" at _blurring of distinctions_ than the
former Asshat, disbarred lawyer prez:
"That depends upon what the meaning of "is" is".
There's plenty more where those came from ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Well demonstrated USanian ignorance Mikey!!
Perfect!
Thanks
---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I have no idea what a "USanian" is - perhaps if you were to write with
generally accepted language your mindless ramblings might at least fall
into
a context.
As for the Right to Bear Arms - have not seen that put forth by anyone
but
you. Keep trying - at some point if you keep repeating irrelevant
garbage,
someone might just take you up on the topic. Unfortunately for you -
no one
is speaking about the right to keep and bear arms.
Obsessive compulsive would apply better to an idiot that continues to
interject irrelevant comments into a conversation where the topic of
his
babble has not previously been introduced.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> And if he's outside - drag him inside!
No, no, no! How would you explain the trail of blood?
The location of the assaulter is irrelevant. Whether he's in your bedroom or
across the street shooting at you with a rifle, you almost always have the
right (and I would say the duty) to respond with lethal force.
It's the imminence of the threat, not its location of the perp, that
determines.
If, for example, you shoot through the door, your explanation to the cops
goes something like this:
"He was pounding on the door! He screamed he had an axe and was going to
chop down the door! He screamed when he got through the door he was going to
chop me! Then I, in fear of my life, discharged my weapon..."
Leon wrote:
>>
>> If they planned to do a burglary or rape the woman, it is still
>> felony murder for the waiting driver. Perhaps not the maximum
>> sentence. Think of the deterrrence value of it.
>>
>
> There is that word IF again. If it actually happened then yes the out
> side guy should be charged with the crime that actually happened.
> Because one one was actually murdered he should not be brought up on
> murder charges.
No, "if" about it. Gomer #2 participated in the planning and execution of
the crime.
Gomer #2 HAS been charged with murder.
For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder rule. That
you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's unfair is at variance
with the greatest legal minds of almost a millennia, indeed, your position
is the opposite of a civilized society.
Leon wrote:
>>
>> No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
>> of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
>> misdemeanor, let alone a felony.
>>
>
> It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
> some way for being with him.
That has to be the most idiotic statement I've heard in the last hour.
If you didn't hold him down, for that purpose, would he be still alive?
-------------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If I have no knowledge he had a gun, there's no foul. If I knew he had a
gun, but, again, had no information that he intended to use it in an illegal
manner, also no foul.
If I knew he had a gun and intended to shoot somebody and I went along to
try and dissuade that action, no foul.
If I knew in advance that my buddy intended to commit an illegal act and I
went along to assist in some way, I'm equally guilty of any offense my buddy
commits. My assistance can be quite passive, such as a look-out, driving the
getaway car, or anything tending to make a success of my buddy's escapade.
Let's take a simply example: If I hold the victim down while my buddy stabs
him 18 times thereby ending the victim's life, should I be responsible only
for simple assault? After all, I didn't do any stabbing.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 6:34 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)
>
>I only own one ... a Remington Model 11 20 ga which my father gave me
>when I was nine. No shells are in the house.
>
>My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
>loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
>door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
>neighbor across the street.
>
>After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
>in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.
That's entirely illogical, Swingy. Keep a loaded weapon (or ten) and
extra ammo for each in a handy safe if nothing else. With no ammo,
the gun is useless to YOU, too, in case of emergency. A gun safe
allows you to keep them around with no chance of the perps stealing
them.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
>> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
>> do see the stark difference?
>>
>> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
>> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>
> Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
> how can you say?
You're kidding right? Logic dictates that if they charged the dude, the
state where it happened must have a felony murder statue, eh?
All it takes for the rest of my statement is to be familiar with the
common law concept of _legal fiction_, which by its very definition
includes defying logic, common sense, and reality.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:14:15 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:24:44 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men, one
>> wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
>> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>
>Hey Larry, I agree with you but I read it was 2 people - 2 ain't
>several :-).
Mea culpa. I thought I heard 3 on her first statement.
>I live in a state without a castle law. But you can bet I'd rather be
>"judged by 12 than carried by 6".
Amen to that.
>And if he's outside - drag him inside!
And let the forensics guys prove you guilty without a doubt.
That'll instantly put the jury on their side and you in jail.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>>>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ... read
>>> the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand that this
>>> particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor does it fit with
>>> the crafted distinction in all States that have a felony murder statute.
>>>
>>> What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.
>>
>> What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?
>
>Involuntary manslaughter.
Works for me.
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
Leon wrote:
>
> Common sense.
>
> You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
> and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding
> with out wearing a seat belt????
>
>
> Now do you see the logic?
No, I don't see the logic, nor, evidently, do you.
A passenger in a car is not a participant in any offense in which the driver
partakes.
Take it further: You are a passenger in a car. Your buddy, the driver, gets
incensed over the actions of another driver, pulls up beside the other
driver, and, through the open window, shoots the other driver dead. Are you
in any way guilty of anything? Of course not.
If, however, YOU are driving and you buddy says "Pull up beside that asshole
so I can shoot his sorry ass," and you do as your buddy asks, you have
committed felony murder (in most jurisdictions).
On 1/6/2012 4:44 PM, Larry W wrote:
> Can't speak about a home invasion, but I personally have experienced, in
> a large eastern center-city neighborhood, police no-show to a 911 call for
> firearms being discharged on the street outside my (former) home.
>
>
Good thing no one killed, having personally experienced that crime you
would have been lawfully charged with murder.
On 1/6/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:15:37 -0600, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 11:14 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:24:44 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't you listen to what she said in the video? Several large men, one
>>>> wielding a 12" knife, who broke her door down to get at her isn't
>>>> imminent threat of being harmed? Jesus, Han. Please buy a _clue_!
>>>
>>> Hey Larry, I agree with you but I read it was 2 people - 2 ain't
>>> several :-).
>>
>> 2 can appear as several if you are cross eyed or drunk. ;~)
>
> Wouldn't 2 appear to be 4 then?
yesss and that would then appear to be several. I'm trying to help you
out, work with me here.
>
> --
> It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
> --Eleanor Roosevelt
On 05 Jan 2012 19:44:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> "Swingman" wrote ...
>>> On 1/5/2012 8:21 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/2012 7:33 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-in
>>>>> truder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't sound good for mom to me. Granted she
>>>> defended herself, but now she has killed somebody.
>>>> The guy may have needed it, but I suspect that she
>>>> is pretty much traumatized over it. She certainly
>>>> didn't look very happy on the news last night.
>>>
>>> Horseshit!
>>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> There is all kinds of trauma. Her husband had died a few days
>> earlier. What kind of trauma would have happened to her and her babies
>> if she did not shoot him? Also. what if some politically correct
>> prosecutor came after her? Some self defense victims are ruined
>> financially with having to defend their actions. That would certainly
>> be traumatic.
>>
>> Also, she in no way did anything aggressive or reckless. She hid for
>> 21 minutes, talking to 911 before she shot the guy. All the time
>> protecting her child. How many times have we heard about some idiot
>> who lost it and somebody died because they did not do the right thing
>> and act in a manner that protected life. She did the exact right
>> thing. And for that, she should be proud of herself. She was a mamma
>> bear protecting her cub. I am certain that any other kind of response
>> (or non response) would be terribly traumatic. Not only for her, but
>> for every one who knew her. Again, she did the right thing.
>>
>> The other point that nobody wants to talk about is that she is a
>> woman. I taught self defense classes to women over 40 years ago.
>> Long before it became socially acceptable to do such things. There is
>> tremendous pressure on women in general to be a victim. Don't fight
>> back, don't make a scene, etc. Not only is this demeaning to women,
>> but it is a green light to any kind of whacko or criminal to prey on
>> "helpless" women. Like the bumper sticker says, "Nobody Ever Raped A
>> .38".
>>
>> Having directly dealt with a large number of women who were assaulted,
>> I can tell you that hurting somebody else is far preferable to being a
>> victim. The women I worked with fell into two categories. Those who
>> wanted to move on and were willing to do whatever to see that this
>> sort of thing never occurred again. The other category was much more
>> tragic. These poor women basically crawled into a paranoid hole and
>> never came out again. They became recluses, depressed, etc. I think
>> today, there would be more support for them. But the fact is that a
>> large number of victims never live normal lives again.
>>
>> Whatever trauma occurs as a result of defending yourself, it simply
>> does not compare to the alternative. And I know that it is a
>> cornerstone of liberal philosophy to create more victims and disarm
>> the populace. Apparently creating safe working conditions for
>> criminals has a higher social purpose. This woman did exactly the
>> right thing. She should be commended and rewarded in some fashion.
>> Certainly she should be given some support of some kind. If more
>> women were like her, there would be less problems in this country.
>>
>> And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
>> use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
>> outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty
>> quickly. They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It
>> would be better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions
>> for criminals.
>>
>> End of rant.
Nice one, Lee. Kudos.
>I'm a liberal. I am in favor of registration of firearms, and licensing
>people for the use of them.
Does that hold for just us law abiding citizens, or the criminals,
too, Han?
>This lady did the right thing, and (I believe) has the 911 tapes to prove
>it. Because she had a baby, and was in her home, she had and has the
>right to defend herself against a perp like this. While it must be
>traumatic to know she killed a human being, that human being didn't live
>according to the rules. End of story. Kudos to the lady and I hope she
>can get on with her life as best she can as soon as she can.
Ditto.
--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt
On 1/9/2012 2:15 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 5:09 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2012 8:48 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder
>>>>> rule. That you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's
>>>>> unfair is at variance with the greatest legal minds of almost a
>>>>> millennia, indeed, your position is the opposite of a civilized
>>>>> society.
>>>>
>>>> The "greatest legal minds of almost a millennia" have arguably spent
>>>> more time in advancing their business model through blurring of and
>>>> shading distinctions than serving the common good.
>>>
>>> Hmm. You COULD argue that, but you'd be wrong.
>>>
>>> Probably.
>>>
>>> Do you have an example?
>>
>> Way too easy. Does OJ ring bell ...
>
> I approved of the OJ verdict. When the prosecution couldn't even fram a
> guilty man, the man deserves to go free.
>
>
I hope the leather glove was not what convinced you. LOL Any gofer
knows that a leather glove will shrink after being wet.
On 1/5/2012 12:31 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
Snip
>
> And as for the poor misunderstood home invaders, that is simple. Just
> use them for target practice. It is like those morons who hang a sign
> outside of their house, "gun free zone". They get robbed pretty quickly.
> They take the sign down. Criminal are safety conscious. It would be
> better for every one to created DANGEROUS working conditions for criminals.
A neighbor, a sheriff, has a sign in his front yard that says,
NOTHING in this house is worth dying for.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:50:27 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
>>>> be charged with felony murder.
>>>
>>> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
>>> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>>
>> Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
>> die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.
>>
>
>Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
> Standing out side is not a crime is it?
If she hadn't been armed, what do you suppose would have happened to
her and/or the baby? Wouldn't she have been gang raped and
burglarized, at the very least?
Crimes:
stalking
breaking and entering with intent to rape
attempted burglary
Conspiracy to rape
Conspiracy to breaking and entering
Conspiracy to burglary
Find a speaking weasel. He'll put those into actual legal terms for
ya, bud.
These two were, in all probability, bad, bad men.
Leon, what would you do if you were an American soldier driving down a
road in Afghanistan and you saw an Arab standing there with an RPG,
looking right at you after his buddy shot his RPG?
Standing by the road isn't a crime, is it?
--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra
On 1/6/2012 9:39 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
>>>
>>
>> None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner
>> will
>> be charged with felony murder.
>
> I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
> overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.
>
> Asshat lawyers ...
>
No shit! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No murder
was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to pay for
killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on the young
woman.
On 07 Jan 2012 21:57:44 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/7/2012 2:36 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say
>>>>>> I'll wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take
>>>>>> a piss.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide
>>>>> intent and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I
>>>> think that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that
>>>> some one said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems
>>>> to be common knowledge only here in this group. ;~)
>>>
>>> "Prosecutors have instead charged the intruder's alleged accomplice,
>>> 29- year-old Dustin Stewart, with first-degree murder in the death of
>>> his friend, Justin Shane Martin, 24."
>>> A news report, so not authoritative ...
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6t4ggnq
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-mom-face-charges-victims-accomplice/stor
>>> y? id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U
>>>
>>
>> Humm... we'll now see if it makes it to court.
>
>That's a whole other kettle of fish ...
If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.
--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.
Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the obligatory
bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was out of my
mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just microwaved with some
kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was delicious, and held up well to
warming up ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 1/6/2012 1:47 PM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know. The guy knew that the lady was in her home alone, with
>>> a baby. He and the dead dude were likely egging each other on,
>>> perhaps (as it states) high on drugs, wanting more (money and/or
>>> drugs). Therefore, they were both committing a feloney, and the
>>> result was 1 dead dude. The other should be charged with at least
>>> soomething, leading to the death of the first one.
>>>
>>> I'm glad I live on the other side of the Passaic River ...
>>
>> Have not really thought this through, but I think at first blush I
>> disagree Han. The dude that went in got what he deserved. The other
>> guy did not and he should not be responsible for the fate of the first
>> guy. Other charges? Sure. Attempted burlary or the likes would work
>> for me. Other types of charges reflecting his actual participation?
>> Sure. Just not sure I see the real logic in the murder
>> (manslaughter?) charges.
>
> Apparently it is quite common in the states that when a group (2 or more)
> hatch a plan to commit a crime, and a death occurs, that all involved
> except the victim(s) are painted with the same brush as the actual
> perpetrator.
I think you may have that mixed up with when a police officer looses his
life during a criminal act, all involved will be charged for his murder.
Just Wondering wrote:
>
> It's not conspiracy to commit murder, it's a crime known as "felony
> murder." Most states have a criminal statute that says if a person is
> killed during the commission of a felony, the death is classified as a
> murder, and every person involved in committing the felony is guilty
> of the murder.
>
>> Yeah, the second guy needs to be punished for his involvement,
>> but I'm not sure a murder rap is the correct punishment.
>
> That's the risk a person takes when deciding to commit a felony.
Good explanation. Let me expand it a bit:
A homicide (killing of one person by the actions of another) occurs during
the commission of a felony, the homicide is Felony Murder. All individuals
involved in the original felony are guilty of the crime. Note that the
person committing the homicide need not be the felon (as it was in this
case). In the extreme, during a riot, if a homicide occurs, ALL involved in
the riot are guilty of murder.
We had a case in my town, May 15-16, 1967, where 489 people were initially
charged with capital murder (killing of a police officer).
Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
> Plus, having her husband die on xmas day, just a few days prior, she's
> going to be in therapy for a while, I expect (if she can afford it.)
Therapy? For God's sake, why?
Who would need therapy for killing a rabid dog? Same thing.
>
> Having basically the whole country saying "well done", will probably
> help
> a bit.
I agree.
Swingman wrote:
>
> I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
> justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
> do see the stark difference?
>
> You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
> felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.
>
> Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
> what should be the even hand of justice.
Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
is shot and killed.
Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
with the engine running.
The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
act that any member undertakes.
Leon wrote:
>
>
> OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe
> that this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that
> go with it.
> I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed while
> committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder. If you
> were not there, there would be no murder. Your being there and him
> being killed as a result of self defense does not make you a murderer.
>
> You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun with
> out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight pulls his
> gun but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are charged with
> felony murder. Does that sound about right?
>
Of course not. In the scenario you propose, I did not participate in the
fight or the planning thereof.
But suppose I and my buddy PLAN to go to the bar and whip the shit out of my
buddy's enemy (or maybe shoot him) and I drive the car or otherwise
participate in the plan, even to the smallest degree of "watching his back,"
then, yes, I'm guilty of murder.
Suppose I have a car. My buddy says, "Hey, would you drive me over to 1000
Main Street?" and I agree. While at the Main Street location, my buddy
murders someone. I face NO charges.
If, on the other hand, my buddy says, "Hey, would you drive me over to 1000
Main Street? There's someone there that needs killing." If I give him the
requested lift, I'm a murderer.
This distinction, prior knowledge of the propose crime and participation in
the crime, imputes guilt to all the participants. It's been this way in
common law since the Magna Carta (probably).
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Han wrote:
>
> I must admit that I'm not sure whether she or her baby was indeed
> under real imminent threat of being harmed, and I did live in Mass.
> when there was a case of a woman fleeing into her basement during a
> home invasion, and killing the guy who ccame down after her. She was
> acquitted, I believe, because there was no secondary exit through
> which she could have fled. Had there been another exit from the
> basement, she should have used that.
## Yes, in some jurisdictions you MUST retreat. Many states, however, have
recently passed laws implementing the "Castle Doctrine," which presumes an
intruder means grievous bodily harm. Killing said intruder is not only
justifiable homicide, but NO civil liability can attach. That is you cannot
be sued by the asshole's relatives. Some states have gone farther (like
mine) and implemented a "Stand Your Ground" standard. That is, you may
respond with deadly force wherever you have a lawful right to be: in your
bedroom, in your car, on the sidewalk, at the mall, wherever.
>
>> What's been overlooked in this sorry episode is that she was on the
>> 'phone to 911 for 21 minutes. I can't imagine any urban jurisdiction
>> where it would take the cops more than five minutes to respond to a
>> "home invasion in progress" call.
>
> Not sure where she was in relation to emergency services, or how rural
> and diispersed the area is, but that seems indeed a bit strange.
> When I broke my arm on July 4th a few years back, police and
> ambulance were in my back yard in minutes.
Why would the police respond to a broken-leg / medical call? Did you inform
the dispatcher that some stink-eye broke your leg and is roaming the
neighborhood with a baseball bat?
====================================================================
The last time (only time) I broke my leg, the police were first on the
scene. Of course, I was laying in the middle of an intersection.
Maybe another good Samaritan got punished again?
Perhaps they heard a scream and were going in to rescue somebody when the
stoned drug freak woman murdered her potential rescuer, hallucinating he was
an attacker? Her father, a police officer, was first on the scene.
We ain't gonna' know the facts.
--------
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
to and why isn't that person being charged too?
And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
that did not happen.
An another note, in Texas, many southern states, it is not unusual at
all to see one with a large hunting knife attached to his belt. AND
this is a more common site in trailer parks.