Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Prior crimes do not indicate guilt and can't be used as evidence for a conviction of a new crime.

I just did use it.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Not true.

Did the guy serve time for those prior crimes?

is he currently being tried for those crimes a second time?

Example case
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MN&vol=sc\0002\c698989&invol=1

You can't use prior convictions in a court of law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
LOL calling me a sock puppet?

No, don't think so. Thanks. I've fought with him before on another topic. I live in NJ, i don't know where he lives.

But seriously can you answer my questions instead of attacking credibility? I'd appreciate a more mature nature of discussion from you. I'm not 15.

I dont know what the heck a socket puppet is , but can you explain how "you" supposedly answered my question
when you just quoted shuma?


Im not here to accuse anyone of anything . But it makes no sense to me
why you would quote someone else and said "you" answered.

slow down there.

I asked you questions in an early post and then after you skipped my question, I asked you to answer mine. I quoted YOU who just happened to quote him.

But seriously

answer my questions


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Bottom line. Dead men tell no tales. The student claims that he feared for his life.... he'll walk.

The only bugaboo is... what the guy who overheard the screaming really heard.

My question is.. who was doing the screaming for his life? If it can be proven that the guy that was cut up was the one screaming BEFORE the fatal blow was struck then the kids going to jail. I.E was it an execution with a samarai sword? or a true self defense.

GG

This is why I like you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:

dogma wrote:
If you're a determinist, then they actually don't.

I don't have the granular ability to view the causal process so I work with the evidence I have. Oddly, law presumes choice as well. Its a funny world.

frgsinwntr wrote:
stealing some small value items is not, in MD, if the theft was under $500, it is not a felony, but 4th degree and therefore not justification for deadly force
[/url]
You might want to look at 'Home Invasion' - that crime performed when someone is actually home rather than burglary.
According to William Welch

1) the defendant actually believed that the victim was committing or about to commit a specific crime in or at the defendant's home

Well, there's no question here.

2) the defendant's belief was reasonable

5.4x murder rate of national average is pretty reasonable.

3) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's conduct.

This is the only one that is debatable. I posit that 29 convictions and just getting out of prison the prior weekend may well have been the only way this would have stopped at all.

he served time for the previous convitions, these can not be used to convict him of a new crime

frgsinwntr wrote:
in an attempt to stop the flaming....


Luna....
Are you saying that we anyone that kills someone in their house is innocent?

Are you saying that if someone breaks in you should shoot them?

How do you expect an answer when different situations and variables come into play ?
too vague for a proper reply.

Now if anyone messes with that guy all he has got to say is "I killed a guy with a Samurai Sword in one hit. Your move."

IMHO the intruder deserved it. If it was night time and a random man is in my house and he lunges at me and I got a weapon in my hand you bet your sweet ass I'm not going to go

"HOLD ON A MINUTE GOOD SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE ON YOUR TRUE INTENTIONS BEFORE I DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT USING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION THAT COULD RESULT IN YOUR DEATH OR MAJOR PHYSICAL HARM!"

If I were the intruder I would have screwed you up by then. If he didn't mean harm to me, he would have turned and LEFT etc. not attacked me.

And Frg, I would really like to see what you would do in the same situation. I'll say it, I would have done the same exact thing. Now, the intruder doesn't truly deserve death, but that is the risk when you attack someone in their own home at night.

Now, if the dude would have ran down and wtf pwned him with the sword when the intruder wasn't looking, that is a different case. But ATM we assume that he didn't.

If this guy is convicted it's a sad story. If you invade my house and attack me I'll GLADLY shoot you dead. That doesn't mean I won't feel bad about the killing, but my life is more important than yours. End of story.

Welcome to the internet, where every smokeouts ps3 and every armchair generals doorstep is more valuable than human life.

Because human life has some inherent value that humans don't assign to it? The value of human life is at best enlightened self interest.
Rocks don't seem to care. Animals don't seem to care. Weather doesn't seem to care. Insects don't seem to care. Mankind has no empirical evidence its any more or less valuable than any other animal.

A man is dead. There's one less burglar available to relieve me of my stuff. One less person cycling through our legal and prison systems. Somehow how they died is supposed to be more important than the Obituaries.

Sod that.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Relapse wrote:

M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?

Wow...
just wow

Speaking as someone who has had people come at him with guns and knives for the purpose of robbery, I can tell you that there was no regret on my part what I did to them. If I had a weapon at the time, they would have been dead and I would have had no regrets. As it was I had to settle for crippling them up.
In that kind of situation, there is no time to think about observing the niceties and trying to reason with someone who may have had a messed up childhood.

if thats true... then in your case you WOULD have legal grounds for this.

I used to work at the Clarion hotel on Canal Street in New Orleans doing graveyard shift. It was close by the Iberville projects and it got to be a pretty lively place around there at night.

Just to drive you guys nuts with what ifs...
Yesterday a guy broke in to my house, i let him leave with my stereo, waited. Then broke into his house and raped him, he then shot me in the back(i in his...) and he sued me for 10 trillionbajillion dollars. The judge found in favor of the plantiff, which was me for i had countersued, acting against histhreat to sue me which made me very afraid that i was going to die, because laywers chase ambulences. My mom said they do that cause they drained my dad dry, and he was chasing him to sign the credit card slip to cover his bill, or something like that. Anyway long story short, i got put in a home for gifted youngsters and and now have mutant ape powers, and a sword...actually a Rapier. Thats right i'm the fabled Rapier Ape, now with 50%more rape. So you see i was actually fighting crime by raping that B&E criminal. Bet you he'll think twice before stealing stuff from mutant monkeys again.And all this before 3pm. The rest of you however are screwed.


Oh and to quote Rob Schinder
"You can do it!
Cut his F---ing head off!"

frgsinwntr wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.

but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT

I wish you good luck in trying to ascertain someone's motive before they kill you in a robbery.

frgsinwntr wrote:Not true.

Did the guy serve time for those prior crimes?

is he currently being tried for those crimes a second time?

Example case
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MN&vol=sc\0002\c698989&invol=1

You can't use prior convictions in a court of law.

What's not true? That outside of the courtroom people can continue to use prior convictions to base their judgements? I never mentioned a trial, I mentioned an investigation. It seems unlikely that this case will ever be brought to trial at all.

That presumption of innocence is not a guarantee of actual innocence? That should be self-evident.

Relapse wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
TY fateweaver.

@others , good luck that if anyone ever gets broken in , the intruder arnt the type that kills the victim as well.

If you want to put your family in danger because you are afraid to hurt the intruder too badly , thats your choice.

if you have children in your home and someone breaks in, then in most cases you are protecting your family... in most states this is grounds for the self defense argument.

but shooting someone simply because they break in... is NOT

I wish you good luck in trying to ascertain someone's motive before they kill you in a robbery.

qft , im out.

Never mind, Oldgrue's post is more relevant.

frgsinwntr wrote:
he served time for the previous convitions, these can not be used to convict him of a new crime

He also can't be convicted POST MORTEM. This is not a courtroom. Where i posit 29 crimes establish a pattern.
See also USC28a rule 404
"(2) an accused may introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim, as in support of a claim of self-defense to a charge of homicide"
So there's confirmed opportunity to use it in defense.

I'm cheering for the student, simply because I believe in the castle doctrine...although the sword does have a certain poetry.
Similarly, dumbass should know better than to have expensive toys in that neighborhood. If he can afford Johns Hopkins, he can get an apartment in Glen Burnie for the same price with a lower crime rate.

I say do what the Texans do with burglar's shoot to kill.
Maybe then folks won't mess with stuff.

frgsinwntr wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Under California (and Texas) Law, in my home, I have no "duty to retreat" - one of the few sensible laws that we have on the books.

wow... does everyone jump to hitting people? You don't have to use deadly force if you can leave the situation and call the police.

If someone is attacking me, I have the right to defend myself as I see fit.

The whole point of the Castle Law is that, your home should be safe ground, so where else would you go?

Shadowbrand wrote:I say do what the Texans too with burglar's shoot to kill.

That's not really fair though. Firearms instructors generally teach
1:have a damn good reason to have your weapon out, and
2:If you're pointing it at a person, you intend to kill.
And they teach 'shoot to kill' in Montana, Virginia, Oklahoma, Wyoming.....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If someone is attacking me, I have the right to defend myself as I see fit.
The whole point of the Castle Law is that, your home should be safe ground, so where else would you go?

I agree with you, but some people seem to forget the whole violence(or thereat thereof)/supreme authority concept.





(before Wrecksaur goes there: Yes, Violence is indeed authority with sour cream and tomatoes for $0.40 more. *just* like a taco supreme.)

Oldgrue wrote:
I don't have the granular ability to view the causal process so I work with the evidence I have. Oddly, law presumes choice as well. Its a funny world.

The law doesn't presume choice. You can remove choice from the system and replace it with qualitative logic. For example, you would imprison a murderer not because it was his decision to commit murder, but because he was determined to be a murderer and murderers should be imprisoned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:
Because human life has some inherent value that humans don't assign to it? The value of human life is at best enlightened self interest.
Rocks don't seem to care. Animals don't seem to care. Weather doesn't seem to care. Insects don't seem to care. Mankind has no empirical evidence its any more or less valuable than any other animal.

Aside from the fact that we're all human anyway. I mean, if you're going to argue that any given human is no more valuable than any given cow, then you should probably stay as far away from the meat-eating population as possible.

Oldgrue wrote:
A man is dead. There's one less burglar available to relieve me of my stuff. One less person cycling through our legal and prison systems. Somehow how they died is supposed to be more important than the Obituaries.

Sod that.

Its not in your enlightened self-interest to ensure a fair legal system?

Again, we don't know 100% of the details of the OP's article. We can also speculate the kid invited him in and killed him in cold blood. What we can't speculate is the exchange that took place. Neighbors heard someone scream, they don't know who so that's up to investigators to determine. As well, if there was any kind of verbal exchange/warning that wasn't shouted or yelled the neighbors most likely would not have heard that.

If you warn someone and they don't heed your warning than they obviously intend to keep up with what they are doing or try to hurt you. If I warn somebody that is in my house to leave and they keep advancing or keep rummaging through my stuff looking for something to steal they are going to get shot, as obviously it is there intent to not leave until they get what they are coming for.

If you speed you normally get 1 written warning (after a verbal of course and depending on officer and attitude of the suspect), after that it's ticket and court time. Why should someone breaking into my house get more than one warning? and why the feth should I have to leave my own house when I have the means to defend myself?

It is a persons right to live but when that person threatens my existence, my peaceful existence and/or that of my family they give up that right. Plain and simple.

With 29 priors had he not been killed for being a moron who obviously won't rehabilitate himself he would have MOST LIKELY committed his 31st down the road and it might have been someone else who killed him or he might have killed some innocent person just trying to get a good nights sleep.

If you (try) to rob someone your taking the risk of getting chopped up by a giant sword.

First off: Killing someone with a sword is AWESOME. Seriously. Guy gets a few Style Points. It is generally pretty difficult to use a sword indoors effectively in a modern home. Especially a slashing attack.

Second: If someone breaks into your home you should have every right to do what ever you think is necessary to defend your family, your self, and your possessions. I do not work my ass off for some freeloading, idiotic son-of-a-bitch CRIMINAL to come in a take my stuff.

And that is the key point. CRIMINAL. As soon as he is in my house without permission, he has committed a crime. I have no idea his intentions or his current status of armed or not. If he did not have criminal intentions, he wouldn't have broken in.

That means that poor feth hole is MINE. I will butcher him if I need to, without a question coming out of my mouth to betray my position until he is skewered on one of MY swords. How do I know he isn't there to rape my wife? I'm not giving him a CHANCE to to do anything but run, or die. That is your penalty for committing a crime against me in my own home. I'm so sorry you can't grow a brain and be a contributing member of society, but that isn't my problem at the time.

And another thing that should not be allowed: Said criminal's family should NOT be able to sue me for killing him. Why should I pay because your child/husband/other family member is a criminal? I've probably already paid for his jail time, that family doesn't deserve gak.

Rant over.

Your wish is granted .

dogma wrote:
The law doesn't presume choice. You can remove choice from the system and replace it with qualitative logic. For example, you would imprison a murderer not because it was his decision to commit murder, but because he was determined to be a murderer and murderers should be imprisoned.

Since we don't have any method to evidence said determinism, we must presume choice. I can't summon Laplace's Demon any more than anyone else. Heisenberg suggested this particular demon can not exist, and still violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Determinism then beggars the philosophical question of responsibility. Can there actually be crime for a causal (or scientific) or theological determinist? If there was no option, then there is no responsibility, and therefore no accountability for wrongdoing (or wrongdoing for that matter).

I mean, if you're going to argue that any given human is no more valuable than any given cow, then you should probably stay as far away from the meat-eating population as possible.

Strangely, I say much the same thing in regards to PETA. They still won't leave me alone. But to follow the analogy: The cow and I both would prefer not to be eaten, but in the end neither of us have a universal determination making us inherently more valuable. Lots of cells, proteins, nutrients, but no "Do not smite under penalty of..." tag.

Its not in your enlightened self-interest to ensure a fair legal system?

Aha! Herein lies the rub. The legal system is not in question.
A man stole from another man, who responded with violence. We question the degree of violence, but accept that the theft was unfair. How many repetitions does it take for a career criminal to be removed from the populace as irredeemable?
Some cultures advocate pretty severe repercussions for theft.
I'd say the law was pretty darn fair to the burglar.

edit: is it wrong of me to have expected the rocket propelled chainsaw?

Mattlov wrote:First off: Killing someone with a sword is AWESOME.

Do you what would make it more AWESOME!?

If the guy was Japananse and had a ponytail!

Problem with a Bazooka in such close confines as a house it that most likely the blowback would have nowhere to go so you'd destroy your eardrums and half the room you were in just firing it, and then there is the whole "hit something with an explosive device designed to kill a tank" catching you in the blast and pulping you as well.

I'd personally give this kid a medal. If he does still serve jail time even if he is found to have defended himself due to "excessive force" I will write a letter to that state governor and let him know how unfair it really is and how messed up it is you can't defend yourself.

In a different article I read it said that the kid told the investigator that he had told the guy to "Freeze. Stay where you are." and then the guy lunged.

If he isn't lying about it than the guy had ample warning, had time to rethink his stupidity. Instead he opted to go after the guy armed with a sword and obviously intended to harm the kid. The fact he died on the scene is just too bad as now the kid will have a blood stain on his garage floor. Nothing Oxyclean cannot take care of.

Fateweaver wrote:Problem with a Bazooka in such close confines as a house it that most likely the blowback would have nowhere to go so you'd destroy your eardrums and half the room you were in just firing it, and then there is the whole "hit something with an explosive device designed to kill a tank" catching you in the blast and pulping you as well.

lol

Are we sure that isn't Kanye West holding that Bazooka. The guy seems that dumb to me. LOL.

Oldgrue wrote:Since we don't have any method to evidence said determinism

Oh thank you for the laugh. Did you do stand up for your teachers too?

ShumaGorath wrote:

AGAIN i need to ask you , WHY do we need to take a chance with OUR life to make sure the INTRUDER isnt too badly harmed.

Because killing is inherently wrong by the modern understanding of the social contract, and the idea that property is more valuable than life is questionable at best. Also, don't use the size script to prove your point. We all read it the first time, it's not like we can't read the tiny letters. Instead of using big type, try understanding opposing arguments.

Well, the whole social contract theory is a load of bull twinkie anyway. Its about as useless as a Russian whore in church....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Problem with a Bazooka in such close confines as a house it that most likely the blowback would have nowhere to go so you'd destroy your eardrums and half the room you were in just firing it, and then there is the whole "hit something with an explosive device designed to kill a tank" catching you in the blast and pulping you as well.

lol

OMG! FETHING HILARIOUS! Oh, and I agree with pretty much everything you have posted so far Luna, nice work.

frgsinwntr wrote:[
... I pose you the question, what if he wasn't?

What if he wasn't what? There to rob the guy? That the student just happened to invite over a person who is criminal? Just so he could kill them under the pretense of being robbed? I'm sorry, I'd like to think that the only people who are that sadistic and crazy don't live here. But, I may be wrong.

But, I suppose we should look at the alternative? What if the dead guy had simply broke in to have a dry place to sleep? It's still breaking and entering. And then there is the account that he lunged at the student. If it is all true, then the student was completely correct in his actions.

We could sit here and debate all day about the possibilites.

What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but a robot sent back in time to save the world from evil omni-computers.
What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but a zombie who was determined to bring the world to it's knees in a zombie plague.
What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but Chuck Norris?
What if the dead guy wasn't a human, but already dead? [Wait, see above Zombie entry]

Get my point?

A dead man couldn't be CN.....CN cannot be killed or die!

Skarwael wrote:
Yes, but you don't have to be trained to shoot at a non vital area.

I would imagine the excruciating pain would be enough to incapacitate them.

Actually, to purposefully hit a (moving) target as small as an arm or leg (and anywhere in the torso/head is a vital area), one would have to be very highly trained, especially in the heat of the moment. It is a known fact that one of the effects of adrenaline is the loss of fine motor control. If you doubt that fine motor control is necessary when using a handgun, you've never fired one. Yes you can "spray and pray", but have fun claiming self defense when your stray bullets hit neighbors and/or innocent bystanders (or even the family members you were trying to protect), but miss the target (It's amazing how much you can miss by even at a distance as little as three feet). This is the main reason that self defense classes teach pupils to aim center mass.

Another reason they train you to do this is criminal law. No matter where you shoot somebody, unless they receive proper medical attention the person will die. They may not die quickly, but they will die, either from blood loss, or if left untreated long enough, infection or septicemia. The laws state that there are only certain times in which you may use deadly force. Even having the time to decide to try the far riskier shot to incapacitate, is evidence of the fact that your life was not threatened enough to warrant deadly force. Basically, if you you need to use lethal force to protect yourself, then use lethal force.

Yet another reason they teach you this is civil law. Say you DID shoot to incapacitate, and beat the subsequent criminal charges. This does NOT make you immune to civil lawsuits from the perpetrator, or his/her family. You know charges like "intentional maiming" and other such.


More OT: All of the above would presumably apply to using a sword on somebody, especially if that person is actually coming at you. Their momentum combined with your own force, would presumably make the cut deeper than intended.

Lordhat wrote:This is the main reason that self defense classes teach pupils to aim center mass.

As well as police and military training.