yeah..too lazy for an emoticon...Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Printable View
yeah..too lazy for an emoticon...Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Burglary/B&E at a Minimum...
Uh, yes it is his choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard K
His house is toast.
O2
I could perhaps understand not pressing charges against the one whose parent was remorseful, but the other? Heck no, throw the book at him!
This is why that kid is a felon already. The parents likely are too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
And yep, there is a good chance that these scum will be back.
Hey, sorry fellas. I don't get online much at night. No BS. This is from a long time friend. I know it's not how most people on this board would have done things. To each their own. I would have pressed charges also. Eff anyone that thinks they can go into my house. He mentioned that the cops have the kids names so if anything comes up again, they're first on the list. Not that it matters much after the fact anyways. Apparently, he didn't lock his back door. I have no idea why you don't lock your house but again, to each their own. The dog was in a kennel hence why it didn't attack the intruders or anything.
My friend is a good guy and is hoping that this is enough of a wake up call for the kids. One started crying and the other started stuttering as soon as he confronted them. However, as some have said, once the parent called me anything but awesome, I would have done everything I can to show her how much of an asshole I could be. I do fear that this isn't over for him. I told him he should probably move but he said he doesn't feel at risk. I don't know how you can say that after multiple break in's. I'll do some more encouraging to him but each person will only do what they feel they should. All his guns are secure but If it were me, I'd probably just move them completely out of the house for a while minus my carry weapon.
I was driving down the street once and BANG! something hits my car. I look up on a hill and see these (4) 13-14 year old kids running away. I thought they threw a rock at my car.
I had never been in the neighborhood but I saw the direction they were headed. I rushed over to where I approximated they would be, saw them, jumped out of my car, and sprinted after them. I caught 3 of the fuckers. I don't know how, I guess I'm really fast and agile when I'm seeing red. I bunched them all together and grabbed the collars of all their shirts with one hand, while I called the cops with the other hand.
After about 5 minutes they were saying I was hurting them and asking if they could sit down. They were all whimpering, and face to face because I had them by the shirt collars. It must have looked ridiculous. I wasn't about to release my death grip on them. The cops showed up, and we went back to my car. They had thrown a full pudding cup at me and hit the roof right above the windshield. It didn't do any damage to the car.
The cop asked me if I wanted to press charges, or just scare them. I said just scare them. I'm sure they got in big trouble with their parents. If there had been damage to the car I would have pressed charges. It was dumb of them, and I'm sure they didn't see getting off the hook with the cops as opportunity to go out and do it again.
B&E is way different though. There is zero chance that I wouldn't have pressed charges.
It's a judgement call he needed to make, and I'm sure he felt he was doing the right thing. Dealing with a 13 year old who walked through an unlocked door and cries when he's caught is a bit different from walking in on a 17 year old gang member who kicked the door off its hinges or crawled through a 2nd floor window. Apparently they didn't hurt the dog or trash the place. He thought calling the parents was a good idea, but it turned out that one of the parents was a bigger shitbag than his kid. Maybe the other parent will beat the hell out of his own kid and tell him not to hang out with shitbag junior anymore. Little hope for shitbag junior, but maybe the other kid will turn his life around and choose not to go down that path.
Pressing felony charges SEEMS like the right thing to do . . . but if they're 13 year olds who live on the same block as you, that complicates things a bit. Now instead of being the white guy who threw two junior high kids in juvie for being stupid, he's the guy who COULD'VE pressed charges but didn't. This will make the kids' families, friends, and associates hate him less, and be less likely to do things to his house and vehicles in the future. Besides, the felony burglary probably would've been reduced to misdemeanor criminal trespass with no jail time and they'd just need to see a probation officer once a month and have their Youthful Offender record sealed. If he likes the house and wants to keep living in that neighborhood, I can understand why he did what he did. NOW he just needs to lock his fucking doors when he leaves the house and let his dog out of the kennel crate.
Did it happen in Colorado ??? If it did Govenor Pussylooper would have given them a medal and a joint.... Fuck LIBTARDS...
Say what? "I hate you because I robbed you and you put me in jail." Think about how stupid that sounds. I couldn't care less if my thieving neighbors hated me or not, if you break the law you really have no right to be pissed off at someone else. To hell with those kids, they need to be taught a swift, harsh, and tough lesson... If that involves them going to jail, so be it, they made that bed, they can't bitch that it's not to their liking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
By 13 most gang bangers have been in the mix for 5 years. 13's the new 21. First as look outs (FIVE OH) and runners, graduating up to B&E's, ATM attacks and high end vandalism. By 18 they've done 2-5 in juvy, if not tried already having 1 charge as an adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Excusing the crime / criminal especially after the "Racist" accusations demands shows the apple has not fallen far from the tree.
why would you think these are sarcastic replies? the man should've put them in the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Property crimes, excepting arson, which do not immediately threaten your or another person's life do not justify ending someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
"What about their legs? They don't need those!" -Goblins, LoTR:TTTQuote:
Originally Posted by brutal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
WTF?
The OP says 17 and 18 year old.
Burglary is burglary whether the door is locked or kicked in.
They also didn't rape the cat or flood the basement - so what?
Where does it say 13 year old living on the same block as the victim?
WTF Over?
sure, when you're dealing with someone stealing a toolbox out of the back of your truck. these were two intruders inside the man's home. that transcends "property crime."Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
He was not present when they entered and therefore not endangered. He chose to enter prior to the Police arriving. How exactly does one defend one's actions in this case, if he "put them in the ground?"Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
It's quite simple--they were in his house. Please show me where there's an exception for defending yourself in your house because you weren't there when someone entered it, because I'd really like to see that. Please, not some internet BS, but actual legal authority in Colorado that precludes personal defense in your home because you were not there when someone broke into your home.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
You're not going to win this... I'd give up now.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
It's not about me "winning" anything. The law is clear, and it is simple. For those that don't know:Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
§ 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Tell him to add a fire sprinkler system soon, I fear next time it's not gonna B&E but arson.
I've got better things to do at the moment than try to convince you you're wrong on this. My wings are getting cold and my beer is getting warm.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
And he's not going to give up defending his position either. WE know he's incorrect, why waste time or energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
The owner DID not believe he was in imminent DANGER.
IF KEY WORD IF he felt there was a potential THREAT / Imminent Danger to him. He should have never entered the House. Any prosecutor would have a field day with this.
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder/ Make My Day Law
1: The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3: Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4: Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
18
-
1
-
705
Use
Of
Physical
Force
In
Defense
Of
Premises
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises
. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18
Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Property
A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18
Again he did not feel there was an Imminent Threat to himself.
-
You also can't put yourself in a situation where deadly force could be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
The argument would be that he knew people were in there and he put himself in the situation. He shouldn't have even entered the house to be honest. He should have waited for the police.
The person in this story did a few stupid things.
1. Entered the house.
2. Drew down on them.
3. Didn't press charges.
Only smart thing he did is not shoot them.
He's probably going to be sued, and sadly, probably going to lose.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
They are certainly lucky it was his house and not mine.
And so are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
What do you people not get? You'd spend life in prison if you shot them.
You're all starting to scare me.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
No you wouldn't, and you are a twit.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
Cameron
What about George Zimmerman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
Um yes you would. Unless you have an airtight story [ told by your attorney] you cannot beat forensic science. The Court of Public Opinion especially with parents as described will crucify you. . Ask this white hispanic in FL, named Zimmerman how that shooting is playing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
IF, IF YOU BELIEVE there is someone in your home and you enter while LE is in route AND use deadly force you're screwed. Like i said, Justifying Use of deadly force when LE is on the way puts you in a very tough to defend position.
The first question asked by any 1/2 ass investigator would be Why did you Call the Police / Dial 911, THEN enter your home....... OOPS.
right on point there-- a fight outside a home in a common area of a neighborhood. Here, we're talking about two folks inside a man's home.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanWolf
That's some great armchair lawyering, Jim. Of course, 18-1-705 talks about defense of a premises, which is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about being confronted by two intruders inside your home, which is governed by 18-1-704.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
How is Zimmerman relevant?
I received a call that my alarm has been tripped and my dog is barking.
I went home thinking it was probably a false alarm (statistically probably 20 to 1 that the alarm was false).
I went inside and to my horror was confronted by two men who had been burglarizing my home appeared to have a similar desire to take my life in the same way they were stealing my property.
In fear for my life I was forced to shoot them both in self defense.
I would like to speak to my attorney.
You can call me all the names you want now. But when you come through the back door or the jail on murder charges, I expect to be called "sir".Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
Oh, and good try on baiting me into doing something stupid resulting in a ban. Sorry it didn't work, bro.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Do you have ANY Colorado case law that backs up anything you have written?Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
I HAVE had this situation and I DID arrive before the police and I did enter MY HOME and I would have used any force I deemed necessary to protect myself. You are making a massive number of assumptions that are illogical and not reality based.
Cameron
Still that doesnt stop from the families suing him.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
The point is, there would have never been a confrontation if he would have done the right thing and waited for the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111
I'm done now. I'll watch from the sidelines and giggle to myself now.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
Do you have ANY case where someone entered their own home confronted a criminal committing a crime, killed them and is now doing life?Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
Cameron
:: sigh ::Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.