Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Awwww...they were just trying to eat when they got shot by a woman

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Awwww...they were just trying to eat when they got shot by a woman

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...g_breakin.html

    Well, eat LEAD ! pew pew pew ... feed 'em gooood. Here, have an extra helping....pew pew pew

    Now if the law was as it should be where one can shoot people on their land at will for the most part then these stories would not exist with people crying about shooting criminals.

  2. #2
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    I just love a feel good bedtime story!!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    195
    Its horrible they died... but it is their own fault.

    I think the author is twisting this "trying to eat" thing a bit... its simply a phrase used like... "to make a living." So their friend was basically saying they were making all their money as burglars, not trying to find food because they were starving.

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...g_breakin.html

    Well, eat LEAD ! pew pew pew ... feed 'em gooood. Here, have an extra helping....pew pew pew

    Now if the law was as it should be where one can shoot people on their land at will for the most part then these stories would not exist with people crying about shooting criminals.
    Umm, no. You should not end someone's life just because they accidentally stumble across a property line. Even if your property is well marked with no trespassing signs, it's always possible that some of your signs were down for some reason and in such a case, a person may not have received legal notice. Obviously I'm speaking of larger sections of non-residential land where it would not necessarily be reasonable to expect every person in every circumstance to be aware if they've accidentally wondered over a property line. If you were to say anytime someone unlawfully enters your dwelling, then yeah I think I'd agree.
    Advocate freedom please

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Umm, no. You should not end someone's life just because they accidentally stumble across a property line. Even if your property is well marked with no trespassing signs, it's always possible that some of your signs were down for some reason and in such a case, a person may not have received legal notice. Obviously I'm speaking of larger sections of non-residential land where it would not necessarily be reasonable to expect every person in every circumstance to be aware if they've accidentally wondered over a property line. If you were to say anytime someone unlawfully enters your dwelling, then yeah I think I'd agree.
    I say you should not even have to place any signage. And I don't think people accidentally stumble into someone's property...I think that would solve the issue of signs being blown down by the wind.

    I guess I think that one should be able to travel about his property an be able to defend themselves without the government scratching their head and charging one with a crime.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...g_breakin.html

    Well, eat LEAD ! pew pew pew ... feed 'em gooood. Here, have an extra helping....pew pew pew

    Now if the law was as it should be where one can shoot people on their land at will for the most part then these stories would not exist with people crying about shooting criminals.
    But where would you "draw the line"? After all, just think of the practice opportunities when the little critters that live on either side of you use your yard as a shortcut. Then for disposal you would have to drag the carcasses to the street yourself since the municipal employees won't want to violate your formal order against trespass.

    As for the article referenced: Good for the brother!

  7. #7
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by cjohnson44546 View Post
    Its horrible they died... but it is their own fault.

    I think the author is twisting this "trying to eat" thing a bit... its simply a phrase used like... "to make a living." So their friend was basically saying they were making all their money as burglars, not trying to find food because they were starving.
    sorry as the author stated w/quotes from a noted clinical psychologist, (paraphrasing) "the bad guys are using this as a mental justification to themselves, family, friends, and so forth."

    this also may be what phrase they told all their friends so the friends knew what activities the bad guys were going to be engaged in for the evening and to stay away from them.

    btw, not the brightest in the gene pool, who the devil breaks into someone whom they knew was on limited income, three times?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    David, just a word of caution, in the Tarheel state, use of deadly force is not allowed in dealing with trespassers, unless the trespasser 'is imminently threatening you with death or great bodily harm."

    also without citizen's arrest provisions, pointing a firearm at them is an arresting offence for the individual holding the firearm. (14.34)

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Umm, no. You should not end someone's life just because they accidentally stumble across a property line. Even if your property is well marked with no trespassing signs, it's always possible that some of your signs were down for some reason and in such a case, a person may not have received legal notice. Obviously I'm speaking of larger sections of non-residential land where it would not necessarily be reasonable to expect every person in every circumstance to be aware if they've accidentally wondered over a property line. If you were to say anytime someone unlawfully enters your dwelling, then yeah I think I'd agree.
    +1

    I think the state has gone to far in charging people with a crime when they have defended their property. But trespass shouldn't = a death sentence.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1

    I think the state has gone to far in charging people with a crime when they have defended their property. But trespass shouldn't = a death sentence.
    The law should be clear and should be easily understood by all, especially in issues of life and death.

    The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all. Although it may result in idiots who mean no harm being shot, so be it is my viewpoint.

    Make the law clear and all will understand it .. that's all that justice requires.

    Now we have laws that no one can understand when a specific set of circumstances present itself. Its retarded. Made to ensnare.

    I put a high value on clarity. The law should as well.

    And it is nothing new in law to have such a view that a person who is on another's land can be shot or killed by the land owner.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I have a high value on human life. The punishment should equal the crime.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    When someone comes onto my property, whether deliberately or accidentally, depending on their purpose, I will either ask them to leave or, if they have a legitimate purpose (meter reader, cable repair), I will allow them to continue. But I will be watching them.

    It is a whole different thing when someone forces their way into my home while I am there. My mindset automatically goes to, "They are here to do me or my wife harm." At that point, I am going to do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.

    When this story hit another forum, there were one or two wringing their hands over the age of the deceased. Sorry, but youth does not mean decreased threat. Don't believe me? Ask any veteran of the late unpleasantness in Southeast Asia.

    It's tragic, yes. But the tragedy is that someone didn't take notice of what these two young men were doing and take action to stop them before someone else had to stop them permanently.

    My deepest sympathies are with the person in the home who had to make that decision. Their life has been forever changed. I just pray they can move past it and get on with their life.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    When someone comes onto my property, whether deliberately or accidentally, depending on their purpose, I will either ask them to leave or, if they have a legitimate purpose (meter reader, cable repair), I will allow them to continue. But I will be watching them.

    It is a whole different thing when someone forces their way into my home while I am there. My mindset automatically goes to, "They are here to do me or my wife harm." At that point, I am going to do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.

    When this story hit another forum, there were one or two wringing their hands over the age of the deceased. Sorry, but youth does not mean decreased threat. Don't believe me? Ask any veteran of the late unpleasantness in Southeast Asia.

    It's tragic, yes. But the tragedy is that someone didn't take notice of what these two young men were doing and take action to stop them before someone else had to stop them permanently.

    My deepest sympathies are with the person in the home who had to make that decision. Their life has been forever changed. I just pray they can move past it and get on with their life.
    Agreed. Forcing a way into a mans castle puts one on the right side of defense.

    A trespass across someones field met with deadly force would be a tragedy.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all.
    This is not a true statement. It's probably one of the most unsound generalizations I've heard on this forum. And it's a pretty dangerous one at that. Even if your premise here were true, I'd still disagree with your opinion... But there's no need to get that far, because this premise is most certainly not true.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 05-25-2014 at 09:56 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    This is not a true statement. It's probably one of the most unsound generalizations I've heard on this forum. And it's a pretty dangerous one at that. Even if your premise here were true, I'd still disagree with your opinion... But there's no need to get that far, because this premise is most certainly not true.
    Its good enough. And easy to determine. Zingo, bingo ... a good rule.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ...The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all. ...
    Maybe in Connecticut.

    Most lands out here are public and sometimes it is very hard to tell when you stumble onto one that is privately owned. It's open range, too, so not many fences.

    Mere geographical location is not sufficient for your distinction.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The law should be clear and should be easily understood by all, especially in issues of life and death.

    The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all. Although it may result in idiots who mean no harm being shot, so be it is my viewpoint.

    Make the law clear and all will understand it .. that's all that justice requires.

    Now we have laws that no one can understand when a specific set of circumstances present itself. Its retarded. Made to ensnare.

    I put a high value on clarity. The law should as well.

    And it is nothing new in law to have such a view that a person who is on another's land can be shot or killed by the land owner.
    If I should have property that I own, that I have setup a personal shooting range on, and some idiot gets killed while crossing my shooting range, that death is on them not me. I'd like to build a 1000 yard range. I have a friend that has been invited to a 1000 yard pistol match so I know it can be done.

    I do agree though that all laws should be crystal clear. There is a general rule of law that if two individuals of average education and intelligence cannot agree on what the law says then the law is void for vagueness.

    If the laws were only meant to be understood by lawyers and judges then only lawyers and judges can be subject to the laws.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Are you implying that it is acceptable to steal anything??
    If so, you are dead wrong!!




    Agreed!
    I did not imply anything. I did nothing but explain what the friend of the burglar meant by her words. I never said anything about whether I agreed or disagreed, or it was right or wrong.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If I should have property that I own, that I have setup a personal shooting range on, and some idiot gets killed while crossing my shooting range, that death is on them not me. I'd like to build a 1000 yard range. I have a friend that has been invited to a 1000 yard pistol match so I know it can be done.

    I do agree though that all laws should be crystal clear. There is a general rule of law that if two individuals of average education and intelligence cannot agree on what the law says then the law is void for vagueness.

    If the laws were only meant to be understood by lawyers and judges then only lawyers and judges can be subject to the laws.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUN...layer_embedded this you? 1000yd pistol shooting. Really just a pistol technically.

    Many laws are attacked for their meaning where 2 intelligent people argue over its meaning; and judges toss folks in jail at the outcome too. Vagueness is a little bit more than that.

    Feel free to have a 1000yd range on your land. And an idiot running in front in the line of fire? Sucks to be them.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUN...layer_embedded this you? 1000yd pistol shooting. Really just a pistol technically.

    Many laws are attacked for their meaning where 2 intelligent people argue over its meaning; and judges toss folks in jail at the outcome too. Vagueness is a little bit more than that.

    Feel free to have a 1000yd range on your land. And an idiot running in front in the line of fire? Sucks to be them.
    Looks like a Remington XP100
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...g_breakin.html

    Well, eat LEAD ! pew pew pew ... feed 'em gooood. Here, have an extra helping....pew pew pew

    Now if the law was as it should be where one can shoot people on their land at will for the most part then these stories would not exist with people crying about shooting criminals.
    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...3bee421c3.html

    The news article should provide a "teachable moment" to all regarding any sympathy to the OP's wishful thinking.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member katenka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    13
    So they break into the window of a home only to "be on their way out the door."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •