twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Murphy's Law is the part I dread for the homeowner..... especially after reading the part of what the bad guy attempted to claim to the police.... The scenario would be the bad guy attempting to sue the home owner for hacking him up.... Attempts to claim excessive use of force.... Sad but true, as it sounds like this bad guy knew exactly what to "claim" to the police. The rest of the "baseball bat team" may also end up being sued. Now whether or not the bad guy gets away with it is immaterial; but what will happen if he tries it is that the homeowner will be unable to sell his house, etc. have to hire an attorney, attempt a summary dismissal, and if the judge is a liberal twit and allows it to proceed, face depositions, etc by the bad guy's attorney who will attempt to go after a settlement from the the homeowner's insurance company. Reason? They like to settle rather than go to trial. In some states, it won't work because you can't sue someone for injuries incurred when you are committing a felony, and I believe Texas is one of them. Sure hope the homeowner told the police that he truly believed his life was in imminent danger. That should cover the hacking part. The baseball bat gang, however, could have some explaining to do if the police reports are not done, shall we say, correctly.... Hey Groomy, I was watching "To Catch a Preditor" last night, and Dateline had an officer show up to meet a 14 year old girl. He had an AR-15 with 3 loaded 30 round clips in his car, a loaded pistol grip shotgun in the car, a Glock 40 in the car, and a badge and snub nose revolver in his pocket. This took place in Florida, did you here anything about it?? Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 ANYONE breaking into your home has to be considered a threat to your life. Once the bleeding heart tree hugging lawyers and judges get involved it gets twisted all out of shape. Dead men tell no tales. A bad guy is a bad guy. I have no use for them and no compassion or sympathy. I won't lose a seconds sleep unless I have to clean up a mess. PERIOD! Dude I have no probs when the guy is taken out to save you or your loved ones!!!! I just wanted to know where the threat is when he is running away and a mob is trouncing on him? Like I said I am not saying what he did was right!!! Threat situations was a big part of my Army training and I could not see a threat anymore with a guy on the ground bieng beaten to death. If the death penalty is now normal for burgularly then more power to ya. But I don´t think it is like that. The threat is always that he could come back? Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germerikan Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Like I said I am not rooting for the bad guy. It is just where does protecting your house and home turn into murder because the guy is fleeing and is no longer a threat? If he is fleeing why should I fear for my life? If I read right they ran behind him to get em. Just wondering I have no problem with the idea of a burgaler or a child molester having their life ended by a bulet in the back as they run away. The main problem is as the economy continues to get worse, I believe we will see more of this. Roger Child molesters should get the death penalty, or at least castration in my book but that is not the discussion here. We have had this for a long time!! All I was saying is that when the guy could not move and was bieng mauled the mob took the justice system into their own hands and that is not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Honestly - I dont know all of the details. He went to the hospital in pretty bad shape hacked up and beat to a pulp. The bad guy was conscious and told the ploice that this random guy chased him down the road and started hacking him up for no reason. He is charged with several felonies. Now my friend has to miss work and go to police interviews and ID the guy. I am armed all of the time and now I will do a better job of locking my doors. I get cold chills when I think of the guy wallking into the unlocked house with the woman asleep stealing the keys. Its unfortunate that the guy lived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germerikan Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The threat is always that he could come back? Roger The mob was beating him with baseball bats and a machete if I read correctly, why couldent they just detain him?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The threat is always that he could come back? Roger The mob was beating him with baseball bats and a machete if I read correctly, why couldent they just detain him?? I'll say it again, slooowwwly. If the guy is left to live, there is a chance he could come back to rob you or hurt your loved ones again. Especially as he may want payback on the guy who hacked his hand up when he put it inside the house. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germerikan Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Then, now that he is in custody the penalty should be death correct??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Then, now that he is in custody the penalty should be death correct??? If he is robbing homes instead of B&E on a buiseness, I don't have a problem with that. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germerikan Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Ohh how I love these discussions [] And what would be the proper sentence for B&E on a business instead of B&E on a home. Oh and just to reitterate (sp?) I was happy to the point of they had him on the ground and the police had to pull the others off of him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The mob was beating him with baseball bats and a machete if I read correctly, why couldent they just detain him?? He might beat the time, but he won't beat the ride. They were detaining him by beating him unconcho so he couldn't leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Ohh how I love these discussions And what would be the proper sentence for B&E on a business instead of B&E on a home. Oh and just to reitterate (sp?) I was happy to the point of they had him on the ground and the police had to pull the others off of him! Just as how intent changes the sentence for a murder trial, It is the malice involved in a home invasion, not theft that makes me say he should have his life ended. Shop lifting is not a malicious act, and the chances of someone being injured, kidnapped, raped, and or killed is not the same as a home invasion. If you invaded my home, the chance exists that my 10 year old daughter could become involved. If someone did that, and I was home, death would occur. I will even go so far as to say depending on what happened during the incident, death could become slow and painful with no consciousness of guilt involved. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The mob was beating him with baseball bats and a machete if I read correctly, why couldent they just detain him?? He might beat the time, but he won't beat the ride. They were detaining him by beating him unconcho so he couldn't leave. He was resisting detainment!!!! Honest! Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groomlakearea51 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Germerican asked about appropriate sentence.... Well, that's a problem because appropriate went out the windo in the 80's with "sentencing guidelines" which the judges must follow at the risk of a certain successful appeal. As an example.... Burglary of an occupied dwelling (unarmed) is by law.... good for 15 years... But, first offense, credit for time served, defendant claimed he did not know anyone was in there, etc. maybe 3 years and will be out in 2...... Armed burglary (as in a knife/ firearm); 5 years to 20 years, dependent upon a variety of factors which are assigned "points" when the sentencing recommendation hits the judge's desk. We have more folks in jail/ prison, per capita than any other nation on earth. Is that good? Or is that the result of a pre-disposition to incarerate for reasons beyoind the scope (and appropriateness) of this forum section. Assuming all sentencing factors as neutral, the reason that most folks don't "get what they deserve" is because the jails and prisons are so overcrowded. A substantial majority of prisoners either cannot make what many call excessive bail; others because they have ran afoul of a mandatory minimum sentence that requires incarceration, regardless of the "threat", and the greatest problem is those incarcerated for drug offenses. The sentencing rules, while they vary from state to state, nevertheless are a reflection of the "political" nature of how they were written. "Tough on Crime" positioning by incumbent and/or candidates for proesecutor, state attorney, judges, etc. appeal to the masses, all of whom want "revenge" for a crime. No problem with that from a philosophical point of view. It's just the practicality of locking up half the population. because.... now we (that's you and me...) have to feed them, clothe them, and because of recent "liberal" decisions in case law, have to accomodate needs, provide education, treatment, etc which adds to the bill. And it's a big bill.... really big. Read between the lines, so to speak, and you can imagine the general interests of the public and the special interests of all involved in the "system". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germerikan Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The mob was beating him with baseball bats and a machete if I read correctly, why couldent they just detain him?? He might beat the time, but he won't beat the ride. They were detaining him by beating him unconcho so he couldn't leave. He was resisting detainment!!!! Honest! Roger I was perhaps playing devils advocate here, if it was my house I would have waited until he was in. Then taken him out. I would not however chase him down the street with a machete and try to chop him into pieces, that is pre-meditated in my book. Also when someone is lying on the ground and cannot defend himself I would not keep at it just to kill him because I can. I have seen what mobs can do, is is not pretty and people die. Once again we will agree to disagree and have a beer. Insert yeeeeehaaaaa and gun shootin at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The mob was beating him with baseball bats and a machete if I read correctly, why couldent they just detain him?? He might beat the time, but he won't beat the ride. They were detaining him by beating him unconcho so he couldn't leave. He was resisting detainment!!!! Honest! Roger I was perhaps playing devils advocate here, if it was my house I would have waited until he was in. Then taken him out. I would not however chase him down the street with a machete and try to chop him into pieces, that is pre-meditated in my book. Also when someone is lying on the ground and cannot defend himself I would not keep at it just to kill him because I can. I have seen what mobs can do, is is not pretty and people die. Once again we will agree to disagree and have a beer. Insert yeeeeehaaaaa and gun shootin at this point. I will agree to disagree... One final argument. Premeditation indicates a plan to kill. No time to plot killing this guy. The home owner did not wait at the door with a machette waiting for a home invassion. Premeditation would be an extreemely hard sell in court. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Premeditation can be as bried af looking over your shouler, seeing a knife and using it. It is very easy to prove. Chasing him down the street is also very problematic as he is "defenseless." It seems to me that if you are willing to invade someone's home, or rob them or otherwise put them in danger, you are assuming the risk of serious bodily injury or death. Problem is that the law does not work that way. Oddly enough, if the angry mob chased the guy and mixed him up with someone else and killed them, the burglar would face murder charges for the guys death (felony murder) because someone was killed in the course of his committing a felony (technically, the felony had ended so he can claim that). There was a case where a few guys went nuts while robbing a bank and had a long standoff with automatic weapons, they killed or injured many innocent people and law enforcement. One of the guys was shot and it took a while for the ambulance to get there. The evidence looks like the police "may" have intentinally delayed the ambulance having access until this POS died. They were sued because the guy, after shooting a bunch of innocent people, had the right to medical treatment after he was no longer a threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedcrankcammer Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Premeditation can be as bried af looking over your shouler, seeing a knife and using it. It is very easy to prove. Chasing him down the street is also very problematic as he is "defenseless." It seems to me that if you are willing to invade someone's home, or rob them or otherwise put them in danger, you are assuming the risk of serious bodily injury or death. Problem is that the law does not work that way. Oddly enough, if the angry mob chased the guy and mixed him up with someone else and killed them, the burglar would face murder charges for the guys death (felony murder) because someone was killed in the course of his committing a felony (technically, the felony had ended so he can claim that). There was a case where a few guys went nuts while robbing a bank and had a long standoff with automatic weapons, they killed or injured many innocent people and law enforcement. One of the guys was shot and it took a while for the ambulance to get there. The evidence looks like the police "may" have intentinally delayed the ambulance having access until this POS died. They were sued because the guy, after shooting a bunch of innocent people, had the right to medical treatment after he was no longer a threat. The Holiwood bank robery, and you can see footage on you tube of them taking him down and delaying medical attention. There was a law suit in Arkansas where a home invader was carrying a tv down from upstairs and fell and permanetly injured himself. He sued for negligence and got $60,000 because the home didn't have handrails on the stair case. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Premeditation can be as bried af looking over your shouler, seeing a knife and using it. It is very easy to prove. Chasing him down the street is also very problematic as he is "defenseless." It seems to me that if you are willing to invade someone's home, or rob them or otherwise put them in danger, you are assuming the risk of serious bodily injury or death. Problem is that the law does not work that way. Oddly enough, if the angry mob chased the guy and mixed him up with someone else and killed them, the burglar would face murder charges for the guys death (felony murder) because someone was killed in the course of his committing a felony (technically, the felony had ended so he can claim that). There was a case where a few guys went nuts while robbing a bank and had a long standoff with automatic weapons, they killed or injured many innocent people and law enforcement. One of the guys was shot and it took a while for the ambulance to get there. The evidence looks like the police "may" have intentinally delayed the ambulance having access until this POS died. They were sued because the guy, after shooting a bunch of innocent people, had the right to medical treatment after he was no longer a threat. The Holiwood bank robery, and you can see footage on you tube of them taking him down and delaying medical attention. There was a law suit in Arkansas where a home invader was carrying a tv down from upstairs and fell and permanetly injured himself. He sued for negligence and got $60,000 because the home didn't have handrails on the stair case. Roger but if the homeowner shot and killed that home invader before he had time to loose his balance on the stairs, all would be ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I was perhaps playing devils advocate here, if it was my house I would have waited until he was in. Then taken him out. I would not however chase him down the street with a machete and try to chop him into pieces, that is pre-meditated in my book. Also when someone is lying on the ground and cannot defend himself I would not keep at it just to kill him because I can. I have seen what mobs can do, is is not pretty and people die. Once again we will agree to disagree and have a beer. Insert yeeeeehaaaaa and gun shootin at this point. It's good to play the devil's advocate! Following after them is actually not legal in most states. If you are chasing them, then your life is NOT being threatened. The threat is gone when they leave. You can't kill someone because the 'might' come back to hurt you. That would mean you could kill your neighbor because he might attack you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Trust me, there is no second chance for the intruder as he will never see daylight again. BTW, I hunt deers with specially made .50 AE. Russ, As far as I am concerned, the .50 AE is underpowered for the job. As far as I am concerned, overkill is nescesary so you take as little of a chance as possible of wounding the intruder. Primary home defence wepon, semi auto 12 gauge with short deer slug barrel and 3 inch magnum shells. First round #4 shot, second in in #2 shot, #3 & #4 are double 00, then subsequent rounds are fletchets and slugs. As far as the .50 AE, I would hollow out the 300 grainers, fill with mercury, and solder them closed. The theif will not be suing you if you hit him. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.