Armed Homeowner Confronts Intruder in Racine

[HankT]

By the way Hank Troll, remember all the times you complained to John and Mike about Doug harassing you?

No.

Go figure

JG, would you like to know why I must truthfully answer "No" to your question "remember all the times you complained to John and Mike about Doug harassing you?"

I'll be glad to tell you.

It's rrrreeeeeaaallllly straightforward.

 

[J.Gleason]

JG, would you like to know why I must truthfully answer "No" to your question "remember all the times you complained to John and Mike about Doug harassing you?"

I'll be glad to tell you.

It's rrrreeeeeaaallllly straightforward.

I am sure it is. Your gonna say you never complained about Doug or whined if you will.
Call it what you will. The fact is you whined and complained until Doug took his name off as a State Researcher.
Funny though, even though he is not listed as such he still posts more information then you do.
You were more interested in comparing post counts. Sounds like some one else we all know..... and despise.

 

[1245A Defender]

Wtf??

Sounds like some one else we all know..... and despise.



i resent you telling me/us who we all know and despise!
i enjoy informative posts by many of the quirkier forum members.
i do not like to waste my time reading rants about your petty peeves!

i think the OP handled his situation very well,
i have thought about situations in which i need to point the gun in self defense,
and have decided that i would most likely hold the BG for the cops to deal with.

 

[J.Gleason]

Sounds like some one else we all know..... and despise.



i resent you telling me/us who we all know and despise!
i enjoy informative posts by many of the quirkier forum members.
i do not like to waste my time reading rants about your petty peeves!

i think the OP handled his situation very well,
i have thought about situations in which i need to point the gun in self defense,
and have decided that i would most likely hold the BG for the cops to deal with.

Well it was a figure of speech. If your going to take everything so literal then all I can say is there is a simple solution to you not seeing our "rants and petty peeves."

Don't come to the Wisconsin forum.

 

[oak1971]

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/polliceverso.html

That article is nothing to "thumb" your nose at. :lol:

 

[Drawtheline]

Happening more often in Racine

"What's up with that?" said on: October 6, 2010, 12:48 am
News update people!!! This homeowners back door was indeed CLOSED but was not locked. Mr. Singstock entered through a closed gated backyard off an alley, he closed the gate behind himself, and proceeded through two closed doors.
Mr.Singstock refused to identify himself and made no attempt to explain his presence to the homeowner when asked.
Remaining silent to that homeowner was Mr. Singstocks biggest mistake.

 

[Doug Huffman]

"What's up with that"?

http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&as_q=singstock

Your search - singstock location:wisconsin - did not match any documents.

 

[XDSTEEL]

case law

Was there any case law ever found for this thread?

 

[Spartacus]

Was there any case law ever found for this thread?

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Multiple rule infractions

But 943.10(1m) states that

"Whoever intentionally enters any of the following places without the consent of the person in lawful possession and with intent to steal or commit a felony in such place is guilty of a Class F felony:"

No case law has been cited to date.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Thanks to one of my many PM correspondents, the Rule 16 violation is noted and reported.

 

[XDSTEEL]

Intoxication is "buffeted" between two principles:

1: Accountability-someone who gets drunk should take the consequences of thier actions

2: Culpability- Criminal liability and punishment depends on blameworthiness(involuntarily vs Voluntarily)

Our laws look upon the aggrivation of the offense, not the excuse for criminal behavior.


people v Decina(1956)

State v Hall(1974)-Took drugs Voluntarily

Involuntarily

Burrows V State(1931)
People v Penman (1915)

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Intoxication is "buffeted" between two principles:

1: Accountability-someone who gets drunk should take the consequences of thier actions

2: Culpability- Criminal liability and punishment depends on blameworthiness(involuntarily vs Voluntarily)

Our laws look upon the aggrivation of the offense, not the excuse for criminal behavior.


people v Decina(1956)

State v Hall(1974)-Took drugs Voluntarily

Involuntarily

Burrows V State(1931)
People v Penman (1915)

I understand, I guess my gripe is that usually killing someone while drunk driving usually gets an involuntary charge. I personally have never gotten drunk involuntarily.

I would bet you, however, if I shot someone while drunk, I would get voluntary.

 

[XDSTEEL]

I would not know. What I wanted was to point out the two points accountability and culpability in the situation that the OP posted. Also to get back on topic.