CA - 911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door

[openryan]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

Problem with this country is that everything is now 'letter of the law' instead of 'spirit of the law'. It's why a woman spills coffee on herself and gets 100 million dollars ...

This was the infamous McDonald's incident, afterwards is when all their cups said "caution contents may be hot".

This woman banked, ridiculous law suit. If she didn't feel the coffee being hot through the cup, then it couldn't have been that hot. Furthermore, if the cup did have the warning, would she have not spilled it? Maybe she just likes to spill beverages on herself, only after checking to see if the cup tells her if it will burn her.

 

[HankT]

imported post

openryan wrote:

HankT wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

Problem with this country is that everything is now 'letter of the law' instead of 'spirit of the law'. It's why a woman spills coffee on herself and gets 100 million dollars ...

This was the infamous McDonald's incident, afterwards is when all their cups said "caution contents may be hot".

No, that couldn't have been it...

 

[HankT]

imported post

 

[openryan]

imported post

HankT wrote:

openryan wrote:

HankT wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

Problem with this country is that everything is now 'letter of the law' instead of 'spirit of the law'. It's why a woman spills coffee on herself and gets 100 million dollars ...

This was the infamous McDonald's incident, afterwards is when all their cups said "caution contents may be hot".

No, that couldn't have been it...

Why not? I am pretty sure it is what he is referring to.

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

When I first heard the story and the recording I was not sure what I thought.

I have read all of the posts and it is now clear to me that he was within his rights in shooting the felons who were robbing his neighbor. They were armed with crowbars and they were on his property coming after him and now the world and the state are better off for their absence.

I hope this gives bad guys a moment to pause and think and then find a new line of work.



Tarzan

 

[HankT]

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

When I first heard the story and the recording I was not sure what I thought.

I have read all of the posts and it is now clear to me that he was within his rights in shooting the felons who were robbing his neighbor. They were armed with crowbars...

How do you know that they were armed with crowbars?

 

[HankT]

imported post

openryan wrote:

HankT wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

Problem with this country is that everything is now 'letter of the law' instead of 'spirit of the law'. It's why a woman spills coffee on herself and gets 100 million dollars ...

Cite?

This was the infamous McDonald's incident, afterwards is when all their cups said "caution contents may be hot".

This woman banked, ridiculous law suit. If she didn't feel the coffee being hot through the cup, then it couldn't have been that hot. Furthermore, if the cup did have the warning, would she have not spilled it? Maybe she just likes to spill beverages on herself, only after checking to see if the cup tells her if it will burn her.

There was no McDonald's incident where a woman banked 100 million dollars.

Maybe it was Wendy's?




What about the guy who got life for shooting an intruder in his house? Gotta cite on that one?


Prometheus wrote:

...and why a man shooting an intruder in his house at oh-dark-thirty gets life in prison.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

HankT wrote:

HankT wrote:

Cite?

There was no McDonald's incident where a woman banked 100 million dollars.

What about the guy who got life for shooting an intruder in his house? Gotta cite on that one?

Do your own dnab research Henretta.

Start with the Wikipedia (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] a.k.a. the “McDonald's coffee case”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

You'll find that footnote [1] is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994)

Of what value is the 'net to you, Henretta, if you won't use it - except to troll. You make few 'contributions'.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

 

[Prometheus]

imported post

Whats your deal?

Every post I make you lazily post "cite this, cite that" as if you've never heard of it before. I'm done with that nonsense.

I simply cannot believe you've never heard of the macdonalds coffee incident. That leads me to believe you simply like making people chase their tails...

Thanks to doug you have a great link to a site that has information on virtually everything (since you've obviously never heard of google either).

In this thing called "google" there is a place to ype in a search... USE IT if you honestly care. Asking for a source for something obscure is more than reasonable... asking for a sounce on something as easily found as the coffee incident or the SEVERAL people serving life sentances for defending themselves in their homes is equally as easy. Use the google! Google is your friend!
Here is the link to get you started:
www.google.com

HankT wrote:

There was no McDonald's incident where a woman banked 100 million dollars.

Maybe it was Wendy's?




What about the guy who got life for shooting an intruder in his house? Gotta cite on that one?

 

[Legba]

imported post

A hundred million... six hundred fourty thousand... whatever. Someone ought to do some fact-checking around here.

-ljp

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

I think Prometheus was using exaggeration for effect to make a point. The fact is that there was a woman who spilled hot coffee on herself and received a large judgment in court for 2.9 mil which was then reduced. Also, the original verdict was front page news, the reduction back page news which many people never heard about. And while I have never heard of anyone receiving a life sentence for shooting an intruder in their home, there are numerous cases of people receiving manslaughter convictions for doing so throughout the nation. There are also numerous cases of criminals or their families suing someone using lethal force for self-defense and winning, subsequently bankrupting the original victim. That is why one of the things castle doctrine tends to do is bar any lawsuit by the criminal or their relatives against the victim if the force to stop the crime is deemed justifiable by legal authorities or if the victim is vindicated by a non-guilty verdict if charges are brought.

I think we lost his point in all the nit-picking. While we were founded as a nation of laws, there is both the spirit and the letter of the law. We have gotten so immersed in the letter of the law (note all the people who get off on technicalities) that we have forgotten the spirit of the law. It is impossible to legislate against every evil or harmful act that someone may commit against another citizen, or forsee every possible instance wherein a law-abiding citizen may have to use creative means to defend himself, which is where the spirit of the law comes in.

 

[color of law]

imported post

OK, now write 100 times.

I will google before I ask a stupid question.

 

[HankT]

imported post

color of law wrote:

OK, now write 100 times.

I will google before I ask a stupid question.

Hmm, I don't think that Promotheus or the Huff-man realize what question they are avoiding. Nor will eithercop to their casual conspiracy of ignorance. They revel in it, actually.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Why don't you make clear 'the question that I am avoiding'? I have made one post in this thread and there are no questions addressed to me subsequently.

Or are you again trolling for an argumentative response?

 

[HankT]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Why don't you make clear 'the question that I am avoiding'? I have made one post in this thread and there are no questions addressed to me subsequently.

Or are you again trolling for an argumentative response?

Oh, this might be a clue....


Legba wrote:

A hundred million... six hundred fourty thousand... whatever. Someone ought to do some fact-checking around here.

-ljp

Go to church once in a while, Huff-man... Pray for....another.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Why don't you make clear 'the question that I am avoiding'? I have made one post in this thread and there are no questions addressed to me subsequently.

Or are you again trolling for an argumentative response?

Oh, this might be a clue....


Legba wrote:

A hundred million... six hundred fourty thousand... whatever. Someone ought to do some fact-checking around here.

-ljp

Go to church once in a while, Huff-man... Pray for....another.

So you haven't even read the citation provided at your demand!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case in the first paragraph.

a jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

This clearly will go on until a moderator (please!) calls you to heel.

I am starting to suspect HankT as having a special status. LW has cautioned any number of participants so it is time for HankT to be brought to heel.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

HankT wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Why don't you make clear 'the question that I am avoiding'? I have made one post in this thread and there are no questions addressed to me subsequently.

Or are you again trolling for an argumentative response?

Oh, this might be a clue....


Legba wrote:

A hundred million... six hundred fourty thousand... whatever. Someone ought to do some fact-checking around here.

-ljp

Go to church once in a while, Huff-man... Pray for....another.

So you haven't even read the citation provided at your demand!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case in the first paragraph.

a jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

This clearly will go on until a moderator (please!) calls you to heel.

I am starting to suspect HankT as having a special status. LW has cautioned any number of participants so it is time for HankT to be brought to heel.

I think the status is being correct. You really should read a bit more, Doug.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

USAF_MetalChris wrote:

Now that I've thought about it some more, I don't think he did anything wrong by going out of his house. Where this guy screwed up is saying over and over "I'm gonna kill 'em". He established his intent before going out and initiating contact. He was NOT trying todetain the perps, his clear intention was to blast 'em.

If he'd simply stepped out of his house (without all the "kill talk")and tried to detain them, who then attacked him and where killed when he defended himself...that would be a different story altogether.

I don't have the time or inclination to read the next 4 pages of this thread, so maybe someone else pointed this out already. However, I did want to point out that he only said "I'll kill 'em" once, and it was in response to the dispatcher telling him he will get hurt if he goes outside.

I don't think your interpretation is fair or honest.

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

HankT wrote:

HankT wrote:

Cite?

There was no McDonald's incident where a woman banked 100 million dollars.

What about the guy who got life for shooting an intruder in his house? Gotta cite on that one?

Do your own dnab research Henretta.

Start with the Wikipedia (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] a.k.a. the “McDonald's coffee case”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

You'll find that footnote [1] is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994)

Of what value is the 'net to you, Henretta, if you won't use it - except to troll. You make few 'contributions'.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

He is right HankT.

You're a smart girl, you know it.



Tarzan

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

And there it is........the inevitable "girl" comment from Tarzan :banghead: