On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:17:54 -0600, -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.


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.

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

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.

Just Wondering 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:
wrote in
m:

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" wrote in
in.local:

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

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

On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

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 1/5/2012 8:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:25:10 -0600, 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-2679...-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.

Horse****!

1,000:1 odds that Bill does -not- own a gun?

Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)

Leon wrote:
On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

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-

On 1/6/2012 6:52 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

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.

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. wrote in
in.local:

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-

-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.

Leon wrote:
On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

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.

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...

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.

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.

Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-27777235.html

None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
be charged with felony murder.

On 1/6/2012 7:50 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 1/5/2012 5:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
in.local:

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!

On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...-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

Ed Pawlowski wrote the following:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:17:54 -0600, -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.


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 06 Jan 2012 02:34:02 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 05 Jan 2012 22:31:46 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

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 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. wrote in
in.local:

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 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, 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-2679...-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.

Horse****!

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 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

Swingman wrote in
:

On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...r-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 wrote in
:

On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...r-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.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:14:15 +0000 (UTC), 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 :-).

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

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-

On 06 Jan 2012 18:42:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...r-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

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

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

Larry Jaques wrote the following:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:14:15 +0000 (UTC), 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 :-).

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 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. ;~)

"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 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-2679...-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 ****! 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 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
€‚ €‚
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 1:47 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike wrote in
:

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.

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 Blanchard" wrote in message ...


And if he's outside - drag him inside!
================================================== =========
I hope you're joking.

"Han" wrote in message ...

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 1/6/2012 12:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 06 Jan 2012 18:42:26 GMT, wrote:

wrote in
:

On 1/6/2012 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679...r-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.

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..."