Man who stabbed burglar guilty of manslaughter

Red Dawn · Post by **Red Dawn** » Mon Sep 16, 2002 1:55 pm

The only thing that bothers me about the Homeowner is that he went out of way to conceal the fact that he was responsible for killing the burglar. Disposing of the Knife and his bloody clothing is probably what made him look guilty in the eyes of the Jury.

CaterpillarAssassin · Post by **CaterpillarAssassin** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:42 pm

well If he had only stabbed him once or twice that would be acceptable. But twelve times in the back? come on.....I agree that he should get some prison time, but not life.

Karchiveur · Post by **Karchiveur** » Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:01 pm

Originally posted by TheSovereign
OMG can u see the liberalism in this?
would it be the same if that judge was and jury were conservative?
my god the world is lost!(kinda dramatic aint it?)
whatever can we do to save ourselves from the communist scum!

Well i Think this is where a little bit of anarchism
could come into play?
What Do U Think?

P.S: If anyone would come and break into my house and make a run for it i would give them 3 second head start (i got a long drive way for a reason and a gun In My Closet )

TheSovereign · Post by **TheSovereign** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 1:04 am

kar if u let them run you would be convicted of murder
because the assailant tried u flee and not fight u

its not anarchism
he broke the law entering my house
i have a right given to me by the US constition to LIFE LIBERTY and the persuit of happiness

if someone is in my house they are trying to take away my LIFE(or at least thats my aliby)
thus taking my unloseable right. i have to protect my life by destroying his/hers

it is a very liberal ideology to protect the lives of all including those who seek to destroy you.
this couldnt be farther from the truth the reason why society is getting worse is because we stopped killing off the criminals leaving them to goto jail and come out again due to overcrowding. if we starting thinning that group of people crime would go down

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 1:17 am

I couldn't agree with ya more Sov... U look at these 3rd world nations or shit even the rag heads in the middle east. They don't have the crime problems like we do. You screw up your dead... Granted some people can come out of jail a different person and never look back as to why they were there and they'll never go back. But for the majority they end up back in jail eventually. I think if the US got a lot stricter especially with the judicial system. U kill someone if your found guilty no appeals your dead the next day. Serve them their final meal and put a bullet in their head... The case of this robber if he had lived. They should beat the living snot out of him and bust his knee caps... bet he wouldn't do it again. but this country is too pansy ass and has too many goody too shoes to do that...

Karchiveur · Post by **Karchiveur** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 7:35 am

I know... i wasn't really serious about the long drive way thing but....

like i said "a little bit of anarchism COULD come into play"

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 11:09 am

A situation like this was discussed at great length at my concealed weapons course (taught by a former Miami Metro Police officer BTW).

He pointed out that a woman has it better if she uses excessive force. You have to prove you were in immediate fear for your life or someone else's life.

A grand jury isn't likely to recommend trial since it's accepted that a woman would be in great fear for her life. So as I said above, if his wife had stabbed him 12 times it would never have even gone to trial. A man of small stature would also have an easier time.

My course instructor pointed out that I (220 pounds, 6' 4") would be unlikely to convince a jury that I was in fear for my life (which is utter bullshit, but that's the way it works) so if I was ever in a situation wher I had to defend myself I'd need to be concerned about it.

He specifically recommended to all women in the course to empty the pistol into an attacker. The men he recommend that they limit to a 3 round burst.

Stupid isn't it? I'm sound asleep and wake up to the sound of an intruder in the house scared out of my wits (as anyone would be in such a situation), and I have to be concerned that if he's not armed and I shoot him I may be arrested; if he's armed with a knife and I shoot him I may be arrested, and even if he's armed with a gun and a I shoot him if I use more that 2 or 3 bullets I may be arrested.

New York state used to have a very simple law back in the 60's (my Dad had friends who were in law enforcement back then and advised him on this). The law said that if someone trespassed into your home (being defined as forcing a lock or window and entering without invitation) you were totally justified in shooting and killing him. Even shooting someone armed who trespassed on your property (if the property was compeltely enclosed in a fence and there was a locked gate) was justifiable.

Oh you might go to trial - it's up to the grand jury, but no jury at that time would have convicted you.

Times change...

chottoED · Post by **chottoED** » Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:00 pm

OMG can u see the liberalism in this?...
would it be the same if that judge was and jury were conservative?

that's pretty ignorant Sovereign

whatever can we do to save ourselves from the communist scum!

what's communists????? this isn't freakin china