• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criminals are Entitled to Your Stuff

Rewind and fast forward to a different ending: the homeowner calls 911, the cops come and see him exiting the house, a confrontation ensues, and the cops shoot the thief.

Now we have rioting in the streets protesting how unfair and racist the cops are.

Oh, and looting of course, to protest the death of a thief.
 
blackjack50 said:
<snip video>
Yep. He gets shot and he is the victim. And while no democrat politician would argue that he should be "entitled" to your stuff to make a living, they certainly seek to want to propose laws that encourage that attitude. This, to me, speaks to that entire personality disorder issue that we have in America. It makes me wonder what is behind that personality disorder statistic on prison inmates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well, from the facts presented in the video, and with no other extenuating circumstance, I think we'd have to evaluate the homeowner's danger at the moment the trigger was pulled. I suspect she was not justified - in strict legal terms.

But when looking at the totality of the circumstance, and if put before a jury, she just might beat it.

And these stories from the criminal's family about how good he was and the good things he had in his future? Wha???

He was committing a freaking home invasion burglary! That's the facts! :doh
 
pinqy said:
And I don't blame her for being fed up. I think she was right to have a security system and to be armed. But she shot him in the back and that is not self defense.
Click to expand...

Nt true, shots to the back can be legally justified in several ways, the most important factor though might be if she exercises her right to a lawyer
 
blackjack50 said:


Yep. He gets shot and he is the victim. And while no democrat politician would argue that he should be "entitled" to your stuff to make a living, they certainly seek to want to propose laws that encourage that attitude. This, to me, speaks to that entire personality disorder issue that we have in America. It makes me wonder what is behind that personality disorder statistic on prison inmates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


This is an old case. I remember it from about 6 months ago. Has it been resolved yet?
 
chromium said:
They got right after she had committed her murder, and if you don't like it, put cameras around so they can easily catch whoever after, or sufficient locks. She just wanted to kill someone period. You may as well be defending charles manson
Click to expand...

Good grief.
 
chromium said:
By far, the only likely way the thief gets killed is while fleeing and no threat to the killer. Also the security alarm thing went off and she raced home specifically to attack the thief, instead of just calling the cops and letting the professionals do the job. She put herself in harm's way so acting like she had no other choice is laughable. She's so clearly the greater criminal here that only gun nuts will defend her. Look at one of them, comparing it to being jumped on by the thief and then shooting. That is certainly not what took place
Click to expand...

Her house has been robbed before. I think she was sick and tired of the BS. So, she shot one of the little bastards. No loss. Good riddance.
 
TurtleDude said:
don't know if that was a justifiable use of lethal force but I do get sick of family members trying to pretend that their felonious members were somehow blameless for their own demise. Its like that twit who was mad her son was killed when he went ARMED to rob a Pizza establishment and was fatally mistaken that the employees could not be armed themselves.
Click to expand...

Confrontation and shot in the chest. That makes me wonder if he thought he had a potential target in front of him. But who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
chromium said:
What you're describing if he was fleeing is murder, not self defense. The fear that the investigation will fail is not a legal excuse to kill someone. If you have no aversion to murder, something tells me you won't have an aversion to killing again the next time someone pisses you off, whether they were ever a threat or not
Click to expand...

"Confrontation" and he was "shot in the chest."

I still go back to that. How is he shot in a confrontation...while fleeing...in the chest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chomsky said:
Well, from the facts presented in the video, and with no other extenuating circumstance, I think we'd have to evaluate the homeowner's danger at the moment the trigger was pulled. I suspect she was not justified - in strict legal terms.

But when looking at the totality of the circumstance, and if put before a jury, she just might beat it.

And these stories from the criminal's family about how good he was and the good things he had in his future? Wha???

He was committing a freaking home invasion burglary! That's the facts! :doh
Click to expand...

Well the homeowner knows if she has weapons inside. And he was inside


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
"Confrontation" and he was "shot in the chest."

I still go back to that. How is he shot in a confrontation...while fleeing...in the chest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Chomium's responses are typical of the liberal criminal apologist hogwash pushed every damned day by BLM and Co. And, they go a long way in explaining exactly why Liberals lose elections. The disconnect from how the rest of us think is astronomical.

Someone uninvited is in your house. They do not belong there. End of story.
 
blackjack50 said:
"Confrontation" and he was "shot in the chest."

I still go back to that. How is he shot in a confrontation...while fleeing...in the chest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I said if, which is logically how it usually must go if the thief is shot, since the thief has the upper hand. In this case it seems more like the house owner drove back to the house specifically to confront and kill the thief just before the cops got there...which sounds a lot like premeditated murder to me
 
chromium said:
I said if, which is logically how it usually must go if the thief is shot, since the thief has the upper hand. In this case it seems more like the house owner drove back to the house specifically to confront and kill the thief just before the cops got there...which sounds a lot like premeditated murder to me
Click to expand...

in reality it is called occupational hazard. I wish more honest intended victims would shoot and kill felons. It would cut down on the number of crimes, save us taxpayers lots of money and send a message to assholes that NO YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ROB OTHER PEOPLE
 
chromium said:
I said if, which is logically how it usually must go if the thief is shot, since the thief has the upper hand. In this case it seems more like the house owner drove back to the house specifically to confront and kill the thief just before the cops got there...which sounds a lot like premeditated murder to me
Click to expand...

If you had a security system, and you received positive notification from the system, how long would it take you to decide to go home?
If you were outside your home, and a stranger was crawled out of your window, and while attempting to escape found that you were in the best path out, and decided to run past you, at what point would you decide in the approach of the stranger that they weren't going to attack you? (<- not claiming this happened, but it is a possible scenario in responding to an intruder)
 
Rucker61 said:
If you had a security system, and you received positive notification from the system, how long would it take you to decide to go home?
If you were outside your home, and a stranger was crawled out of your window, and while attempting to escape found that you were in the best path out, and decided to run past you, at what point would you decide in the approach of the stranger that they weren't going to attack you? (<- not claiming this happened, but it is a possible scenario in responding to an intruder)
Click to expand...

I would not go near and instead would let the cops handle it. That's what i'm saying should've been done. In rushing to the scene, what she did is just another form of lawlessness, like the thief, because she wanted to kill someone.

All of you here celebrating the teenager's unnecessary death are far worse than a thief
 
chromium said:
I would not go near and instead would let the cops handle it. That's what i'm saying should've been done. In rushing to the scene, what she did is just another form of lawlessness, like the thief, because she wanted to kill someone.
Click to expand...

How long does it take the cops to respond to a burglary in process with no one at home in your city? Rushing home was not any form of lawlessness, and you have no way of knowing that she wanted to kill someone.

All of you here celebrating the teenager's unnecessary death are far worse than a thief
Click to expand...

What if he was attacking her as he left her house in the commission of a crime? Won't actually waiting for the trial, if there is one, be the reasonable course of action?
 
Thieves can have all my stuff, but I get to pick what they get first :shoot.
 
I don't know how this will play out legally, and no one here knows all the details of what happened. But based on what has been reported, it's hard to see why it was necessary for her to kill this kid. It would be interesting to know exactly where he was, whether he was moving, and if so, whether toward or away from her, when she fired.

I have no objection at all to a person who is already at home shooting a burglar while he is breaking in, especially if a warning has been given, or to an occupant shooting a burglar who does not yield immediately when confronted. I am less willing to call it right to shoot an unarmed kid who has broken in and taken nothing, after he has bolted and is trying to get out the door. And I feel the same about someone who had not been at home shooting to death an empty-handed burglar after he had already come out of her house. It seems like this woman could have done something less drastic, especially considering that police were already on the way. I suppose it's possible she had good reason to believe that even with a gun she could not keep him there until help arrived, but somehow I doubt it.
 
TurtleDude said:
some would argue-with some credibility-that its the Democrat party that has created the sense of entitlement that the family members of the slain mope exhibited. I tend to be more of a fan of "millions for defense, not a penny for tribute" because when you try to pay off parasites they only become more and more likely to believe they deserve it.

This woman's actions sends a far better message than the idiots complaining about some POS getting whacked
Click to expand...

Well his sentence was to be buried in a box, so it would have been cruel and unusual to place him the box alive. ;)
 
American said:
Well his sentence was to be buried in a box, so it would have been cruel and unusual to place him the box alive. ;)
Click to expand...

reminds me of a John Wayne movie (might have been about the SeaBeas in WWII) where a Japanese sniper had been grabbed by a CB using a cherry picker and another CB shot the sniper and john wayne said "why'd you shoot him" and the fellow said-I was scared the fall would kill him!
 
Screw him.

He's dead because he was just another street punk, just like a million other street punks who think they have free reign to terrorize innocent people.

It's a shame that reality only set in shortly after he started bleeding out.
 
Casper said:
Thieves can have all my stuff, but I get to pick what they get first :shoot.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah they can have the bullets-1150 FPS at a time!!
 
chromium said:
I said if, which is logically how it usually must go if the thief is shot, since the thief has the upper hand. In this case it seems more like the house owner drove back to the house specifically to confront and kill the thief just before the cops got there...which sounds a lot like premeditated murder to me
Click to expand...

Sounds like the home owner went to check on their home. I used to go with my father to his business every time the alarm went off. Nature of his business...he got a lot of false alarms. Even had to request police to stop responding unless called. It cost him money.

Would you call it premeditated if we go there and some asshole came running out towards us and got shot because we had a gun? No. We had no intention of killing anyone. Some dumbass put us in that situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:


Yep. He gets shot and he is the victim. And while no democrat politician would argue that he should be "entitled" to your stuff to make a living, they certainly seek to want to propose laws that encourage that attitude. This, to me, speaks to that entire personality disorder issue that we have in America. It makes me wonder what is behind that personality disorder statistic on prison inmates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I have 10 acres of forest and two friends that own backhoes that would let me borrow them. This isn't a problem.
 
pinqy said:
He was shot in the back as he was fleeing. Ms. Jenrette was not, at that time in any danger and was not protecting herself.

I'm all for stand your ground and castle laws, but this doesn't meet the reason or purpose of those laws.
Click to expand...

I bet he doesn't have the guts to do that again. :mrgreen:
 
chromium said:
They got right after she had committed her murder, and if you don't like it, put cameras around so they can easily catch whoever after, or sufficient locks. She just wanted to kill someone period. You may as well be defending charles manson
Click to expand...

Now that statement rates right in line with Trevon's sister asking the question as to how he is going to get money for school. I guess you aren't in favor of self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom