Poll of the Day > Three teen burglars shot and killed by homeowner's son.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Sarcasthma 03/29/17 7:57:19 PM #101:	Cacciato posted... Mead posted... vicedungwinsgam posted... adjl posted... Those other people are dead because she drove them there, thus she is responsible for their deaths. Oh that's how it works? We better start rounding up the Sandy Hook parents and charging them. I nominate this for dumbest post in the topic I second it. Motion passes. Congratulations are in order, @vicedungwinsgam --- What's the difference between a pickpocket and a peeping tom? A pickpocket snatches your watch. <cite>Sarcasthma posted [p:876131213] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote><cite>vicedungwinsgam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Those other people are dead because she drove them there, thus she is responsible for their deaths.</quote> Oh that's how it works? We better start rounding up the Sandy Hook parents and charging them.</quote> I nominate this for dumbest post in the topic</quote> I second it. Motion passes.</quote> Congratulations are in order, @vicedungwinsgam</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AverageBoss 03/29/17 8:57:56 PM #102:	As far as the driver goes, I read in another article on this subject that she knew the victim and planned the whole robbery. <cite>AverageBoss posted [p:876134960] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>As far as the driver goes, I read in another article on this subject that she knew the victim and planned the whole robbery.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
yutterh 03/29/17 8:59:49 PM #103:	darkknight109 posted... yutterh posted... Don't become a criminal and then you don't have to face these charges. I disagree and am glad she is charged with their murder. I be pissed if she wasn't. Don't hang with a group of hoodlums, then you won't have to worry about being charged for their fuck ups. Those teens would not have died if the driver didn't drive them there in the first place. OK, forget about her specifically for a second and whether or not she "deserved" this; look at this from your own perspective. Do you really want to spend your tax dollars on this woman's room and board, potentially for the rest of YOUR life? Because three first-degree murder charges, in most jurisdictions, would carry an absolute minimum of 75 years in prison with no possibility of parole and she's young enough that she could feasibly serve the entirety of that sentence. And for what? For being a driver? Again, you're suggesting that this woman is equally as bad as someone that plans out and executes the murder of an entire family. Of the four people that were involved in this crime, she's the least responsible and least involved of the group. Yes, she deserves prison time, but 75+ years worth? Give me a break. I expect more prudent spending of public money than locking someone up for the rest of their natural life over what was, really, a low-level crime. If it shows people not to flippin break into houses or even associate yourself with burglary. Then heck yeah, I don't mind my tax dollars going to lock people up for a good reason. This is a show of force and shows that people shouldn't want to commit crimes. Because if things go wrong, you will be charged for it. Simple. darkknight109 posted... Knives which were never used by people who didn't kill anyone. Because they were not given a chance to even attempt to. --- i7-5820K 3.3GHz, Asus X99-DELUXE, Corsair H110i GTX, 850 EVO 1TB, EVGA GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX2.0, Corsair 760T, EVGA 850W, Orion Spark, Proteus Core, Benq BL3200PT <cite>yutterh posted [p:876135083] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>yutterh posted...</cite> <quote>Don't become a criminal and then you don't have to face these charges. I disagree and am glad she is charged with their murder. I be pissed if she wasn't. Don't hang with a group of hoodlums, then you won't have to worry about being charged for their fuck ups. Those teens would not have died if the driver didn't drive them there in the first place.</quote> OK, forget about her specifically for a second and whether or not she "deserved" this; look at this from your own perspective. Do you really want to spend your tax dollars on this woman's room and board, potentially for the rest of YOUR life? Because three first-degree murder charges, in most jurisdictions, would carry an absolute minimum of 75 years in prison with no possibility of parole and she's young enough that she could feasibly serve the entirety of that sentence. And for what? For being a driver? Again, you're suggesting that this woman is equally as bad as someone that plans out and executes the murder of an entire family. Of the four people that were involved in this crime, she's the least responsible and least involved of the group. Yes, she deserves prison time, but 75+ years worth? Give me a break. I expect more prudent spending of public money than locking someone up for the rest of their natural life over what was, really, a low-level crime.</quote> If it shows people not to flippin break into houses or even associate yourself with burglary. Then heck yeah, I don't mind my tax dollars going to lock people up for a good reason. This is a show of force and shows that people shouldn't want to commit crimes. Because if things go wrong, you will be charged for it. Simple. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Knives which were never used by people who didn't kill anyone. </quote> Because they were not given a chance to even attempt to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JTekashiro 03/29/17 11:00:16 PM #104:	Zeus posted... JTekashiro posted... America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back. It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked. You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it. <cite>JTekashiro posted [p:876142751] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back.</quote> It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.</quote> You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 03/29/17 11:02:54 PM #105:	Well, first off they broke in at 1230 in the afternoon. And secondly, those are absolutely deadly weapons and it blows my mind that you could think otherwise. <cite>Cacciato posted [p:876142900] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>Well, first off they broke in at 1230 in the afternoon. And secondly, those are absolutely deadly weapons and it blows my mind that you could think otherwise.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
yutterh 03/29/17 11:11:22 PM #106:	JTekashiro posted... You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Those are deadly weapon......like what? JTekashiro posted... Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Their is a thing called turning on the lights. I highly doubt he shot them with as good of a accuracy as he did being in the dark. JTekashiro posted... Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. They had weapons....that is intent enough for me. The home owner didn't intend to kill them either. but look what happened. JTekashiro posted... For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it. Whatever country does that is a terrible country. He was defending his home. You make the brass knuckles and knife seem like kids toys. Those are deadly weapons and have more then enough strength to kill someone. Their is a reason brass knuckles are illegal. --- i7-5820K 3.3GHz, Asus X99-DELUXE, Corsair H110i GTX, 850 EVO 1TB, EVGA GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX2.0, Corsair 760T, EVGA 850W, Orion Spark, Proteus Core, Benq BL3200PT <cite>yutterh posted [p:876143416] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. </quote> Those are deadly weapon......like what? <cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing.</quote> Their is a thing called turning on the lights. I highly doubt he shot them with as good of a accuracy as he did being in the dark. <cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote> Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence.</quote> They had weapons....that is intent enough for me. The home owner didn't intend to kill them either. but look what happened. <cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it.</quote> Whatever country does that is a terrible country. He was defending his home. You make the brass knuckles and knife seem like kids toys. Those are deadly weapons and have more then enough strength to kill someone. Their is a reason brass knuckles are illegal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ultra magnus13 03/29/17 11:38:23 PM #107:	Burglery is not a violent crime. Robbery is. This was a robbery. Robbery is considered a violent\forceable felony, and lethal force is legaly justifiable to stop it in most states. --- ?huh?........ it's just a box. <cite>ultra magnus13 posted [p:876144944] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>Burglery is not a violent crime. Robbery is. This was a robbery. Robbery is considered a violent\forceable felony, and lethal force is legaly justifiable to stop it in most states.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 03/30/17 12:31:12 AM #108:	JTekashiro posted... You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon Bro, what do you think brass knuckles are for? Because I'm fairly certain I didn't see them on Sharper Image as meat tenderizers. And if they are, then I take back everything I said because clearly these people were just going inside to cook a delicious four course meal. --- I find myself identifying strongly with Hitler - Blighboy <cite>Smarkil posted [p:876147597] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon</quote> Bro, what do you think brass knuckles are for? Because I'm fairly certain I didn't see them on Sharper Image as meat tenderizers. And if they are, then I take back everything I said because clearly these people were just going inside to cook a delicious four course meal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Rasmoh 03/30/17 2:14:26 AM #109:	JTekashiro posted... They likely had no intentions of violence. They broke into his home with deadly weapons. You're not actually this delusional, are you? JTekashiro posted... In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids It's incredibly sad that there are countries that will punish you for defending yourself against criminals. --- Miami Dolphins \| Portland Trailblazers \| San Francisco Giants I won't say a thing, because the one who knows best is you. <cite>Rasmoh posted [p:876151820] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>They likely had no intentions of violence.</quote> They broke into his home with deadly weapons. You're not actually this delusional, are you? <cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote> In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids</quote> It's incredibly sad that there are countries that will punish you for defending yourself against criminals.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EreshkigaI 03/30/17 4:36:49 AM #110:	According to CNN, this happened during the mid afternoon. Three people come in dressed in all black, ski masks, gloves, with deadly weapons IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, there is no reason a person shouldn't be allowed to assume the worst and to open fire. Furthermore, each robber was shot once, clearly showing the gunman had more of an intent to defend himself and his father over blatantly killing them. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/ --- http://i.imgur.com/UBoXQ.png <cite>EreshkigaI posted [p:876156147] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>According to CNN, this happened during the mid afternoon. Three people come in dressed in all black, ski masks, gloves, with deadly weapons IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, there is no reason a person shouldn't be allowed to assume the worst and to open fire. Furthermore, each robber was shot once, clearly showing the gunman had more of an intent to defend himself and his father over blatantly killing them. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
rexcrk 03/30/17 5:57:29 AM #111:	JTekashiro posted... Zeus posted... JTekashiro posted... America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back. It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked. You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it. You really don't think you're wrong. Huh. --- These pretzels are making me thirsty! <cite>rexcrk posted [p:876157888] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back.</quote> It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.</quote> You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it.</quote> You really don't think you're wrong. Huh.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfernalFive 03/30/17 6:20:26 AM #112:	rexcrk posted... JTekashiro posted... Zeus posted... JTekashiro posted... America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back. It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked. You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it. You really don't think you're wrong. Huh. The guy is just a troll, just chuckle and move on. --- http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyfabsU4xH1qzy531o1_500.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ggCrHk8.jpg <cite>InfernalFive posted [p:876158406] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>rexcrk posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back.</quote> It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.</quote> You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it.</quote> You really don't think you're wrong. Huh.</quote> The guy is just a troll, just chuckle and move on.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Renraku_San 03/30/17 1:22:28 PM #113:	I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime. --- I worship Jesus Christ and am 100% proud to be Christian! I read the Bible every day, you should too! <cite>Renraku_San posted [p:876176944] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
yutterh 03/30/17 1:23:30 PM #114:	Renraku_San posted... I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime. Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them? --- i7-5820K 3.3GHz, Asus X99-DELUXE, Corsair H110i GTX, 850 EVO 1TB, EVGA GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX2.0, Corsair 760T, EVGA 850W, Orion Spark, Proteus Core, Benq BL3200PT <cite>yutterh posted [p:876177005] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Renraku_San posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime.</quote> Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 03/30/17 2:19:12 PM #115:	AverageBoss posted... As far as the driver goes, I read in another article on this subject that she knew the victim and planned the whole robbery. Well I hope she gets fucked to the full extent of the law then. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a374/sage_assassin20/13295475117601.gif http://i.imgur.com/WOo6wcq.png <cite>Zareth posted [p:876180836] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>AverageBoss posted...</cite> <quote>As far as the driver goes, I read in another article on this subject that she knew the victim and planned the whole robbery.</quote> Well I hope she gets fucked to the full extent of the law then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 03/30/17 2:20:02 PM #116:	yutterh posted... Renraku_San posted... I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime. Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them? Yeah. Also, naked and at level 1. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a374/sage_assassin20/13295475117601.gif http://i.imgur.com/WOo6wcq.png <cite>Zareth posted [p:876180887] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>yutterh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Renraku_San posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime.</quote> Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them?</quote> Yeah. Also, naked and at level 1.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 03/30/17 3:18:32 PM #117:	Zareth posted... yutterh posted... Renraku_San posted... I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime. Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them? Yeah. Also, naked and at level 1. It works in Dark Souls 3 with red phantoms. Why not in real life? --- I find myself identifying strongly with Hitler - Blighboy <cite>Smarkil posted [p:876184812] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zareth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>yutterh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Renraku_San posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime.</quote> Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them?</quote> Yeah. Also, naked and at level 1.</quote> It works in Dark Souls 3 with red phantoms. Why not in real life?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PKMNsony 03/30/17 3:40:19 PM #118:	JTekashiro posted... Zeus posted... JTekashiro posted... America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back. It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked. You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it. Feel free to risk your family's safety on a maybe. I'm sure as hell not going to. Maybe they had no intentions of violence, but I guarantee that would change the second someone woke up and saw them. They sure as hell didn't bring weapons along for fun. <cite>PKMNsony posted [p:876186264] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back.</quote> It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.</quote> You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it.</quote> Feel free to risk your family's safety on a maybe. I'm sure as hell not going to. Maybe they had no intentions of violence, but I guarantee that would change the second someone woke up and saw them. They sure as hell didn't bring weapons along for fun.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 03/30/17 3:44:56 PM #119:	Several things- They broke into a home with an armed man holding an AR-15 and there was an exchange of words. The exchange of words should have been- "Get outta my house!!" "Ooooo! He has a gun!! Sorry sir we'll be leaving now!" That's all. Who argues with an armed man in his own home?! The three people that could've told you aren't able to, anymore. Brass knuckles and knives are considered deadly weapons. When a deadly weapon is brandished in front of an officer, deadly force is justifiable. Same thing applies to someone that enters your home with deadly weapons. It doesn't matter if they intended to just intimidate. That would require mind reading abilities that don't exist. Safety laws and requirements are based on worst case scenario. An armed intruder times 3 is a safety concern. The worst case scenario is allowed as an interpretation. If you and your friend are crossing the street and your friend, out of the blue, snatches an old lady's purse and she has a heart attack and dies from fear, he will be arrested for murder. If you stop and try to help the lady, you have separated yourself from the purse snatcher and the crime. You're a witness. If you run away with him, you are part of the crime and get charged with murder, too. Loss of life during the act of a crime will get all parties involved charged for murder. It's how the law works. It can be argued down in court. In the meantime it's a charge of murder. If she hadn't drove them there, it wouldn't have happened. As s result, her actions allowed the deaths to occur. She's the cause because she was party to it. If that seems unfair, then she should have stayed home that night and she wouldn't be involved in an event that led to loss of life. That too, is how the law works. The law is the law and doesn't care if anyone agrees with it or not. People that agree with it, tend to not get killed in other people's homes dressed in black carrying weapons --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876186586] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>Several things- They broke into a home with an armed man holding an AR-15 and there was an exchange of words. The exchange of words should have been- "Get outta my house!!" "Ooooo! He has a gun!! Sorry sir we'll be leaving now!" That's all. Who argues with an armed man in his own home?! The three people that could've told you aren't able to, anymore. Brass knuckles and knives are considered deadly weapons. When a deadly weapon is brandished in front of an officer, deadly force is justifiable. Same thing applies to someone that enters your home with deadly weapons. It doesn't matter if they intended to just intimidate. That would require mind reading abilities that don't exist. Safety laws and requirements are based on worst case scenario. An armed intruder times 3 is a safety concern. The worst case scenario is allowed as an interpretation. If you and your friend are crossing the street and your friend, out of the blue, snatches an old lady's purse and she has a heart attack and dies from fear, he will be arrested for murder. If you stop and try to help the lady, you have separated yourself from the purse snatcher and the crime. You're a witness. If you run away with him, you are part of the crime and get charged with murder, too. Loss of life during the act of a crime will get all parties involved charged for murder. It's how the law works. It can be argued down in court. In the meantime it's a charge of murder. If she hadn't drove them there, it wouldn't have happened. As s result, her actions allowed the deaths to occur. She's the cause because she was party to it. If that seems unfair, then she should have stayed home that night and she wouldn't be involved in an event that led to loss of life. That too, is how the law works. The law is the law and doesn't care if anyone agrees with it or not. People that agree with it, tend to not get killed in other people's homes dressed in black carrying weapons</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 03/30/17 3:52:20 PM #120:	bshwalker posted... Who argues with an armed man in his own home?! The three people that could've told you aren't able to, anymore. who breaks into a home in the middle of the afternoon in broad daylight? teenagers who think they have big balls and are invincible. i wouldn't put it past someone who breaks into a home in the middle of the day to try to talk trash to a guy holding a gun or threaten him by flashing their weapons. --- http://i.imgur.com/4ihiyS2.jpg "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:876187052] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>Who argues with an armed man in his own home?! The three people that could've told you aren't able to, anymore.</quote> who breaks into a home in the middle of the afternoon in broad daylight? teenagers who think they have big balls and are invincible. i wouldn't put it past someone who breaks into a home in the middle of the day to try to talk trash to a guy holding a gun or threaten him by flashing their weapons.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfernalFive 03/30/17 5:53:36 PM #121:	yutterh posted... Renraku_San posted... I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime. Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them? InfernalFive posted... The guy is just a troll, just chuckle and move on. --- http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyfabsU4xH1qzy531o1_500.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ggCrHk8.jpg <cite>InfernalFive posted [p:876194990] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>yutterh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Renraku_San posted...</cite> <quote>I'm a bit upset with this. The stand your ground should only apply if you have equal weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the "victim" had it ez mode with the AR, he should be convicted with some sort of crime.</quote> Ez mode? It was 3v1. What you want him to go hand to hand against them?</quote> <cite>InfernalFive posted...</cite> <quote>The guy is just a troll, just chuckle and move on.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 03/31/17 1:59:45 AM #122:	InfernalFive posted... rexcrk posted... JTekashiro posted... Zeus posted... JTekashiro posted... America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back. It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked. You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it. You really don't think you're wrong. Huh. The guy is just a troll, just chuckle and move on. Pretty much. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:876222178] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>InfernalFive posted...</cite> <quote><cite>rexcrk posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JTekashiro posted...</cite> <quote>America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right? Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back.</quote> It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.</quote> You seem to think anything a person carries is a deadly weapon. We're talking about brass knuckles and a knife here. Seeing as these kids broke in at night I have a hard time believing any of the weapons were identified prior to firing. Additionally, they broke into his home to steal things, not to assault him. They likely had no intentions of violence. You have no clue if anybody was threatened just like I have no clue if he waited to get the drop on them. The only person that claims words were exchanged shot and killed three people so one has to question the source. For the record, this is only a debate because it is in America. In any other country you would get charged for shooting these kids. Bringing a gun to knife fight is actually upping the level of violence, not reducing it.</quote> You really don't think you're wrong. Huh.</quote> The guy is just a troll, just chuckle and move on.</quote> Pretty much.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sherm128 03/31/17 2:21:27 AM #123:	I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in --- I'm that person that's always here but always forgotten. <cite>Sherm128 posted [p:876222923] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 03/31/17 2:24:12 AM #124:	Sherm128 posted... I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in Well it's good that you're here because nobody mentioned that or had arguments about it in the 123 posts so far. --- I find myself identifying strongly with Hitler - Blighboy <cite>Smarkil posted [p:876223007] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sherm128 posted...</cite> <quote>I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in</quote> Well it's good that you're here because nobody mentioned that or had arguments about it in the 123 posts so far.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 03/31/17 2:30:30 AM #125:	Sherm128 posted... I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in Getaway driver already strongly implies she was in on the crime, otherwise she wouldn't be sitting in a car waiting while three friends don face masks and sneak into somebody's home. =p That and one of the articles mentions she might have orchestrated the thing. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:876223217] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sherm128 posted...</cite> <quote>I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in</quote> Getaway driver already strongly implies she was in on the crime, otherwise she wouldn't be sitting in a car waiting while three friends don face masks and sneak into somebody's home. =p That and one of the articles mentions she might have orchestrated the thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sherm128 03/31/17 2:39:10 AM #126:	Zeus posted... Sherm128 posted... I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in Getaway driver already strongly implies she was in on the crime, otherwise she wouldn't be sitting in a car waiting while three friends don face masks and sneak into somebody's home. =p That and one of the articles mentions she might have orchestrated the thing. Unless she was forced against her will to be a part of the robbery, I don't care what happens to her --- I'm that person that's always here but always forgotten. <cite>Sherm128 posted [p:876223503] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sherm128 posted...</cite> <quote>I heard that they're charging the getaway driver with the murders of the 3 teens because she was in on the break in</quote> Getaway driver already strongly implies she was in on the crime, otherwise she wouldn't be sitting in a car waiting while three friends don face masks and sneak into somebody's home. =p That and one of the articles mentions she might have orchestrated the thing.</quote> Unless she was forced against her will to be a part of the robbery, I don't care what happens to her</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Person106 03/31/17 3:09:27 AM #127:	Seems to me if you're anywhere outside the South or Midwest, you're a big bad horrible guy for preventing yourself from being murdered in your own home. --- https://supermariomakerbookmark.nintendo.net/profile/person106 <cite>Person106 posted [p:876224338] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>Seems to me if you're anywhere outside the South or Midwest, you're a big bad horrible guy for preventing yourself from being murdered in your own home.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lil_Bit83 03/31/17 1:17:13 PM #128:	vicedungwinsgam posted... how in fucks name is the getaway driver facing murder charges that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard of I have no idea. I can understand the driver being jailed as an accomplice to the crime, but not for murder. That's dumb. --- I'm a chick <cite>Lil_Bit83 posted [p:876246001] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>vicedungwinsgam posted...</cite> <quote>how in fucks name is the getaway driver facing murder charges that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard of</quote> I have no idea. I can understand the driver being jailed as an accomplice to the crime, but not for murder. That's dumb.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lil_Bit83 03/31/17 1:27:38 PM #129:	Jen0125 posted... bshwalker posted... Who argues with an armed man in his own home?! The three people that could've told you aren't able to, anymore. who breaks into a home in the middle of the afternoon in broad daylight? teenagers who think they have big balls and are invincible. i wouldn't put it past someone who breaks into a home in the middle of the day to try to talk trash to a guy holding a gun or threaten him by flashing their weapons. Big balls and no brains. --- I'm a chick <cite>Lil_Bit83 posted [p:876246671] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jen0125 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>Who argues with an armed man in his own home?! The three people that could've told you aren't able to, anymore.</quote> who breaks into a home in the middle of the afternoon in broad daylight? teenagers who think they have big balls and are invincible. i wouldn't put it past someone who breaks into a home in the middle of the day to try to talk trash to a guy holding a gun or threaten him by flashing their weapons.</quote> Big balls and no brains.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 03/31/17 1:35:16 PM #130:	Lil_Bit83 posted... Big balls and no brains. pretty much and that's one of the worst combinations someone can have if they want a long life --- http://i.imgur.com/4ihiyS2.jpg "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:876247164] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lil_Bit83 posted...</cite> <quote>Big balls and no brains.</quote> pretty much and that's one of the worst combinations someone can have if they want a long life</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 03/31/17 5:14:15 PM #131:	Lil_Bit83 posted... vicedungwinsgam posted... how in fucks name is the getaway driver facing murder charges that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard of I have no idea. I can understand the driver being jailed as an accomplice to the crime, but not for murder. That's dumb. It's the law. If a person dies during the commission of a crime, all parties involved are charged with murder. As I mentioned before, even if a person suffers a fatal heart attack during a crime, those commitng the crime are charged with murder. The driver drove 3 people to a house to commit a crime. The crime led to 3 fatalities. It doesn't matter that the criminals were the ones killed. Had she not driven them there, she wouldn't be charged with anything. As far as the law is concerned, she drove 3 people to a location and they were killed as a result of her actions. The resident was defending himself from invaders with deadly weapons. She brought them there assuming that they wouldn't have been killed. She was wrong. Her actions set the following actions in motion. The law doesn't flex or sway. Her being charged with murder is the default. She should have known that. The law is based on the theory of people knowing that. It's not the laws fault that she didn't spend more time learning about the law instead of orchestrating criminal activity. She was ignorant. Now she's charged with murder. --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876260649] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lil_Bit83 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>vicedungwinsgam posted...</cite> <quote>how in fucks name is the getaway driver facing murder charges that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard of</quote> I have no idea. I can understand the driver being jailed as an accomplice to the crime, but not for murder. That's dumb.</quote> It's the law. If a person dies during the commission of a crime, all parties involved are charged with murder. As I mentioned before, even if a person suffers a fatal heart attack during a crime, those commitng the crime are charged with murder. The driver drove 3 people to a house to commit a crime. The crime led to 3 fatalities. It doesn't matter that the criminals were the ones killed. Had she not driven them there, she wouldn't be charged with anything. As far as the law is concerned, she drove 3 people to a location and they were killed as a result of her actions. The resident was defending himself from invaders with deadly weapons. She brought them there assuming that they wouldn't have been killed. She was wrong. Her actions set the following actions in motion. The law doesn't flex or sway. Her being charged with murder is the default. She should have known that. The law is based on the theory of people knowing that. It's not the laws fault that she didn't spend more time learning about the law instead of orchestrating criminal activity. She was ignorant. Now she's charged with murder.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 04/01/17 3:01:14 AM #132:	yutterh posted... If it shows people not to flippin break into houses or even associate yourself with burglary. Then heck yeah, I don't mind my tax dollars going to lock people up for a good reason. If that's your logic, why not lock up ALL burglars for life? Why just the ones whose accomplices die during the crime? yutterh posted... This is a show of force and shows that people shouldn't want to commit crimes. Because if things go wrong, you will be charged for it. Simple. So the answer is to throw everyone in prison for life, regardless of the crime? Because that's in essence what's happening here. You can argue deterrence (which is, in and of itself, a pretty flimsy argument in the face of the statistics and various scientific studies that have been done on its effects), but an equally valid argument is this sort of logic behind charging someone encourages more violent home invasions. After all, if I'm part of a group of people breaking into a house with a single occupant, if I shoot them I'm on the hook for murder, but if they shoot my accomplices I'm on the hook for multiple murders. That's... pretty backwards, honestly. Less violent crimes are supposed to warrant less severe punishments. yutterh posted... Because they were not given a chance to even attempt to. You're missing the point - your argument was "they brought knives and other weapons, so clearly they had ill intent". I don't deny that's true... but that's not what the woman is being charged for. She's being charged not because those weapons were used in a murder, but because a different weapon (which she had no way of knowing about) was used by a different person (who she did not know) and wound up killing the people involved with the crime. If you really want to see how lousy this argument is, note that if the robbers were all completely unarmed, with no apparent intent to use violence in the robbery, the murder charges STILL would have been laid. Now, if the circumstances were different and it was the son who died, I would have no problem charging the getaway driver with "Accessory to Murder". That makes logical sense. But it makes zero sense to me that we would charge an accomplice with a significantly more onerous charge for a botched robbery than we would if the robbery was successful. Just to illustrate how fucked up this is, the getaway driver would actually be facing fewer and less severe charges if she had driven the other three to the house for the express purpose of murdering the son. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:876292195] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>yutterh posted...</cite> <quote>If it shows people not to flippin break into houses or even associate yourself with burglary. Then heck yeah, I don't mind my tax dollars going to lock people up for a good reason. </quote> If that's your logic, why not lock up ALL burglars for life? Why just the ones whose accomplices die during the crime? <cite>yutterh posted...</cite> <quote>This is a show of force and shows that people shouldn't want to commit crimes. Because if things go wrong, you will be charged for it. Simple. </quote> So the answer is to throw everyone in prison for life, regardless of the crime? Because that's in essence what's happening here. You can argue deterrence (which is, in and of itself, a pretty flimsy argument in the face of the statistics and various scientific studies that have been done on its effects), but an equally valid argument is this sort of logic behind charging someone encourages more violent home invasions. After all, if I'm part of a group of people breaking into a house with a single occupant, if I shoot them I'm on the hook for murder, but if they shoot my accomplices I'm on the hook for multiple murders. That's... pretty backwards, honestly. Less violent crimes are supposed to warrant less severe punishments. <cite>yutterh posted...</cite> <quote>Because they were not given a chance to even attempt to.</quote> You're missing the point - your argument was "they brought knives and other weapons, so clearly they had ill intent". I don't deny that's true... but that's not what the woman is being charged for. She's being charged not because those weapons were used in a murder, but because a different weapon (which she had no way of knowing about) was used by a different person (who she did not know) and wound up killing the people involved with the crime. If you really want to see how lousy this argument is, note that if the robbers were all completely unarmed, with no apparent intent to use violence in the robbery, the murder charges STILL would have been laid. Now, if the circumstances were different and it was the son who died, I would have no problem charging the getaway driver with "Accessory to Murder". That makes logical sense. But it makes zero sense to me that we would charge an accomplice with a significantly more onerous charge for a botched robbery than we would if the robbery was successful. Just to illustrate how fucked up this is, the getaway driver would actually be facing fewer and less severe charges if she had driven the other three to the house for the express purpose of murdering the son.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 04/01/17 5:06:10 PM #133:	So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal. --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876322528] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 04/01/17 5:13:13 PM #134:	"You're missing the point - your argument was "they brought knives and other weapons, so clearly they had ill intent". I don't deny that's true... but that's not what the woman is being charged for. She's being charged not because those weapons were used in a murder, but because a different weapon (which she had no way of knowing about) was used by a different person (who she did not know) and wound up killing the people involved with the crime. If you really want to see how lousy this argument is, note that if the robbers were all completely unarmed, with no apparent intent to use violence in the robbery, the murder charges STILL would have been laid.' The different weapon was used because of the weapons that were brought for ill intent. It was a reaction to an action started by people that were in a home that wasn't theirs. Nobody knows what anyone has in their house. That stops normal people from entering them without an invitation. I'm sad that these 3 people were killed. But they could have prevented it if they stayed home and did something else, even the driver. If someone plans an illegal act and the players get themselves killed, does the mastermind get to just walk away, free? --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876322909] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>"You're missing the point - your argument was "they brought knives and other weapons, so clearly they had ill intent". I don't deny that's true... but that's not what the woman is being charged for. She's being charged not because those weapons were used in a murder, but because a different weapon (which she had no way of knowing about) was used by a different person (who she did not know) and wound up killing the people involved with the crime. If you really want to see how lousy this argument is, note that if the robbers were all completely unarmed, with no apparent intent to use violence in the robbery, the murder charges STILL would have been laid.' The different weapon was used because of the weapons that were brought for ill intent. It was a reaction to an action started by people that were in a home that wasn't theirs. Nobody knows what anyone has in their house. That stops normal people from entering them without an invitation. I'm sad that these 3 people were killed. But they could have prevented it if they stayed home and did something else, even the driver. If someone plans an illegal act and the players get themselves killed, does the mastermind get to just walk away, free?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 04/01/17 5:16:39 PM #135:	bshwalker posted... So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal. Aiding the act of a felony is indeed a crime. --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead "This Mead guy is an real jerk, I'm outta here" -brisashi <cite>Mead posted [p:876323066] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal.</quote> Aiding the act of a felony is indeed a crime.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 04/01/17 5:17:06 PM #136:	bshwalker posted... So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal. It is illegal to be an accomplice of a crime, to facilitate a crime and to plan a crime that actually gets followed through with. --- http://i.imgur.com/4ihiyS2.jpg "I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:876323091] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal.</quote> It is illegal to be an accomplice of a crime, to facilitate a crime and to plan a crime that actually gets followed through with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Justin2Krelian 04/01/17 5:28:09 PM #137:	I heard about this on the radio. I don't really take issue with the main story, but the fact that the female accomplice who escaped is somehow being charged with three counts of murder is absolutely insane. Of course she should face justice, but this is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. --- -J2K <cite>Justin2Krelian posted [p:876323677] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>I heard about this on the radio. I don't really take issue with the main story, but the fact that the female accomplice who escaped is somehow being charged with three counts of murder is absolutely insane. Of course she should face justice, but this is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 04/01/17 6:18:06 PM #138:	bshwalker posted... So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal. Are you fucking kidding me <cite>Cacciato posted [p:876326267] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal.</quote> Are you fucking kidding me</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 04/01/17 6:30:28 PM #139:	bshwalker posted... So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal. Same thing she would have been charged with if the robbery went off with no one dying: Accessory to a Crime. "Accessory" laws cover all situations where someone is doing something otherwise legal (such as, in this case, driving to/from a house) but which facilitates a criminal activity. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:876326858] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal.</quote> Same thing she would have been charged with if the robbery went off with no one dying: Accessory to a Crime. "Accessory" laws cover all situations where someone is doing something otherwise legal (such as, in this case, driving to/from a house) but which facilitates a criminal activity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VeeVees 04/01/17 6:31:03 PM #140:	Only an idiot would think that a mastermind who planned and executed a crime that led to 3 dead should not be charged with murder. --- Rudy sucks <cite>VeeVees posted [p:876326889] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>Only an idiot would think that a mastermind who planned and executed a crime that led to 3 dead should not be charged with murder.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 04/02/17 1:25:45 AM #142:	Cacciato posted... bshwalker posted... So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal. Are you fucking kidding me No. I'm trying to understand the Darknights line of thinking. The very next post shows that. I can't get on board with anyone that doesn't understand why she is charged with murder. She planned the whole thing and took them there. She is an accessory to a crime. A crime where 3 people were killed because the plan went into a tailspin and hit the ground. You don't charge people for what they intended to do. They get charged for what happened. It was her very own actions, against someone that she knew, that resulted in 3 people being killed. It is how the law works. I used an example earlier of a real life event. Two guys were crossing a street, one of them decides to snatch an old ladies purse. She falls and hits her head on the ground. She was taken to the hospital and had a heart attack a few days later. Not only did the snatcher get charged with murder but the other guy was charged as well because he chose to run away with the snatcher, making himself an accomplice. Neither one of them killed or meant to kill the lady, but it was the actions that created the circumstances that led to her death. By joining his friend, the other guy, that had been doing nothing but walking across the street with his idiotic friend, became an accomplice. If a person plans and organizes a bank robbery, his accomplices get killed by the police, the mastermind is charged with the deaths of his accomplices because he/she created the circumstances with the deaths. Whether that charge sticks will be determined in court. It can be reduced or proven there, not on arrest. The mastermind is not an accomplice. They are the creator. We will just have to disagree on this. It makes perfect sense to me. The court is where it all gets worked out. --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876349682] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal.</quote> Are you fucking kidding me</quote> No. I'm trying to understand the Darknights line of thinking. The very next post shows that. I can't get on board with anyone that doesn't understand why she is charged with murder. She planned the whole thing and took them there. She is an accessory to a crime. A crime where 3 people were killed because the plan went into a tailspin and hit the ground. You don't charge people for what they intended to do. They get charged for what happened. It was her very own actions, against someone that she knew, that resulted in 3 people being killed. It is how the law works. I used an example earlier of a real life event. Two guys were crossing a street, one of them decides to snatch an old ladies purse. She falls and hits her head on the ground. She was taken to the hospital and had a heart attack a few days later. Not only did the snatcher get charged with murder but the other guy was charged as well because he chose to run away with the snatcher, making himself an accomplice. Neither one of them killed or meant to kill the lady, but it was the actions that created the circumstances that led to her death. By joining his friend, the other guy, that had been doing nothing but walking across the street with his idiotic friend, became an accomplice. If a person plans and organizes a bank robbery, his accomplices get killed by the police, the mastermind is charged with the deaths of his accomplices because he/she created the circumstances with the deaths. Whether that charge sticks will be determined in court. It can be reduced or proven there, not on arrest. The mastermind is not an accomplice. They are the creator. We will just have to disagree on this. It makes perfect sense to me. The court is where it all gets worked out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Justin2Krelian 04/02/17 1:36:26 AM #143:	bshwalker posted... I can't get on board with anyone that doesn't understand why she is charged with murder. She planned the whole thing and took them there. It was her very own actions, against someone that she knew, that resulted in 3 people being killed. It is how the law works. She didn't kill them and didn't try to kill them. I don't understand why anyone would think she should be charged with murder just because she did something that led to them being killed. Law or not. --- -J2K <cite>Justin2Krelian posted [p:876350129] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>I can't get on board with anyone that doesn't understand why she is charged with murder. She planned the whole thing and took them there. It was her very own actions, against someone that she knew, that resulted in 3 people being killed. It is how the law works.</quote> She didn't kill them and didn't try to kill them. I don't understand why anyone would think she should be charged with murder just because she did something that led to them being killed. Law or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 04/02/17 1:47:34 AM #144:	Because it's the law. The law is why we have a judicial system. A person is charged with something based on a set of rules that were established, written and preserved as guidelines for conduct. If those guidelines are violated, the rules (laws) call for certain penalties. (Charges) They didn't pull this out of thin air. They're following the guidelines, or the law. It's her fault for not educating herself on the law. I'm sure you guys see how it works, whether you like it or not. Now that you know, are you going to run around with fools that can endanger your freedom because of what they do? No. She could have chose to do the same. She didn't. She created all of the conditions that led to 3 deaths. She chose... Poorly. --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876350574] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>Because it's the law. The law is why we have a judicial system. A person is charged with something based on a set of rules that were established, written and preserved as guidelines for conduct. If those guidelines are violated, the rules (laws) call for certain penalties. (Charges) They didn't pull this out of thin air. They're following the guidelines, or the law. It's her fault for not educating herself on the law. I'm sure you guys see how it works, whether you like it or not. Now that you know, are you going to run around with fools that can endanger your freedom because of what they do? No. She could have chose to do the same. She didn't. She created all of the conditions that led to 3 deaths. She chose... Poorly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 04/02/17 1:51:10 AM #145:	According to some of the logic here, if a drunk driver hits a tree and the tree falls on a group of people and kills them, nothing should happen to the driver because he/she didn't intend to kill anyone, nor did he/she intend to crash. Try pulling that off in court. --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876350732] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>According to some of the logic here, if a drunk driver hits a tree and the tree falls on a group of people and kills them, nothing should happen to the driver because he/she didn't intend to kill anyone, nor did he/she intend to crash. Try pulling that off in court.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 04/02/17 2:31:10 AM #146:	bshwalker posted... According to some of the logic here, if a drunk driver hits a tree and the tree falls on a group of people and kills them, nothing should happen to the driver because he/she didn't intend to kill anyone, nor did he/she intend to crash. Try pulling that off in court. It's more like you drive to work and run over some glass, it shatters and a piece catches someone in the throat and dies, and somehow that's your fault since it couldn't of happened if you didn't drive to work that day. --- RIP_Supa posted... I've seen some stuff <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:876352273] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>According to some of the logic here, if a drunk driver hits a tree and the tree falls on a group of people and kills them, nothing should happen to the driver because he/she didn't intend to kill anyone, nor did he/she intend to crash. Try pulling that off in court.</quote> It's more like you drive to work and run over some glass, it shatters and a piece catches someone in the throat and dies, and somehow that's your fault since it couldn't of happened if you didn't drive to work that day.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VeeVees 04/02/17 2:57:22 AM #147:	Kyuubi4269 posted... bshwalker posted... According to some of the logic here, if a drunk driver hits a tree and the tree falls on a group of people and kills them, nothing should happen to the driver because he/she didn't intend to kill anyone, nor did he/she intend to crash. Try pulling that off in court. It's more like you drive to work and run over some glass, it shatters and a piece catches someone in the throat and dies, and somehow that's your fault since it couldn't of happened if you didn't drive to work that day. No, committing a crime is not driving to work. It's an inherently dangerous activity. --- Rudy sucks <cite>VeeVees posted [p:876353159] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>According to some of the logic here, if a drunk driver hits a tree and the tree falls on a group of people and kills them, nothing should happen to the driver because he/she didn't intend to kill anyone, nor did he/she intend to crash. Try pulling that off in court.</quote> It's more like you drive to work and run over some glass, it shatters and a piece catches someone in the throat and dies, and somehow that's your fault since it couldn't of happened if you didn't drive to work that day.</quote> No, committing a crime is not driving to work. It's an inherently dangerous activity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 04/02/17 3:00:00 AM #148:	bshwalker posted... Cacciato posted... bshwalker posted... So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal. Are you fucking kidding me No. I'm trying to understand the Darknights line of thinking. The very next post shows that. I can't get on board with anyone that doesn't understand why she is charged with murder. She planned the whole thing and took them there. She is an accessory to a crime. A crime where 3 people were killed because the plan went into a tailspin and hit the ground. You don't charge people for what they intended to do. They get charged for what happened. It was her very own actions, against someone that she knew, that resulted in 3 people being killed. It is how the law works. I used an example earlier of a real life event. Two guys were crossing a street, one of them decides to snatch an old ladies purse. She falls and hits her head on the ground. She was taken to the hospital and had a heart attack a few days later. Not only did the snatcher get charged with murder but the other guy was charged as well because he chose to run away with the snatcher, making himself an accomplice. Neither one of them killed or meant to kill the lady, but it was the actions that created the circumstances that led to her death. By joining his friend, the other guy, that had been doing nothing but walking across the street with his idiotic friend, became an accomplice. If a person plans and organizes a bank robbery, his accomplices get killed by the police, the mastermind is charged with the deaths of his accomplices because he/she created the circumstances with the deaths. Whether that charge sticks will be determined in court. It can be reduced or proven there, not on arrest. The mastermind is not an accomplice. They are the creator. We will just have to disagree on this. It makes perfect sense to me. The court is where it all gets worked out. Oh never mind, I thought you were leaning towards the 'she shouldn't be charged' side. Yeah, as far as I'm concerned this is the same thing as getaway driver for a bank robbery. Felony murder charges sweetheart. <cite>Cacciato posted [p:876353248] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Cacciato posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bshwalker posted...</cite> <quote>So what should she be charged with? All she did was drive to and from the house. That's not illegal.</quote> Are you fucking kidding me</quote> No. I'm trying to understand the Darknights line of thinking. The very next post shows that. I can't get on board with anyone that doesn't understand why she is charged with murder. She planned the whole thing and took them there. She is an accessory to a crime. A crime where 3 people were killed because the plan went into a tailspin and hit the ground. You don't charge people for what they intended to do. They get charged for what happened. It was her very own actions, against someone that she knew, that resulted in 3 people being killed. It is how the law works. I used an example earlier of a real life event. Two guys were crossing a street, one of them decides to snatch an old ladies purse. She falls and hits her head on the ground. She was taken to the hospital and had a heart attack a few days later. Not only did the snatcher get charged with murder but the other guy was charged as well because he chose to run away with the snatcher, making himself an accomplice. Neither one of them killed or meant to kill the lady, but it was the actions that created the circumstances that led to her death. By joining his friend, the other guy, that had been doing nothing but walking across the street with his idiotic friend, became an accomplice. If a person plans and organizes a bank robbery, his accomplices get killed by the police, the mastermind is charged with the deaths of his accomplices because he/she created the circumstances with the deaths. Whether that charge sticks will be determined in court. It can be reduced or proven there, not on arrest. The mastermind is not an accomplice. They are the creator. We will just have to disagree on this. It makes perfect sense to me. The court is where it all gets worked out.</quote> Oh never mind, I thought you were leaning towards the 'she shouldn't be charged' side. Yeah, as far as I'm concerned this is the same thing as getaway driver for a bank robbery. Felony murder charges sweetheart.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Justin2Krelian 04/02/17 10:59:46 AM #149:	VeeVees posted... Only an idiot would think that a mastermind who planned and executed a crime that led to 3 dead should not be charged with murder. And then there’s you, who has nothing to contribute so you add your worthless opinion. --- -J2K <cite>Justin2Krelian posted [p:876365365] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote><cite>VeeVees posted...</cite> <quote>Only an idiot would think that a mastermind who planned and executed a crime that led to 3 dead should not be charged with murder.</quote> And then there’s you, who has nothing to contribute so you add your worthless opinion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bshwalker 04/02/17 1:11:41 PM #151:	Ok, why is Charles Manson in jail? --- Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing! ~C.O.I.~ <cite>bshwalker posted [p:876371934] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>Ok, why is Charles Manson in jail?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gradieus 04/02/17 1:27:18 PM #152:	That woman that admitted to being the getaway driver is so stupid. Have fun spending life in prison. <cite>Gradieus posted [p:876372809] in Three teen... [t:75169982]...</cite> <quote>That woman that admitted to being the getaway driver is so stupid. Have fun spending life in prison.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Poll of the Day > Three teen burglars shot and killed by homeowner's son. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Three teen burglars shot and killed by homeowner's son.