How he gonna get his money?

[Malintent]

"This intolerance should not be tolerated!" - you.

You may enjoy spending your time in the presence of salient exemplars, but frankly I am intolerant of the use of these things to foment hatred. Anybody can chop something out of context and use it in a way it was not intended. You want to empower this crap...you are not alone...unfortunately.

You are misapplying your rage. The OP quote was precisely in context with the title and point of the thread. She said it exactly like it was quoted.. and meant exactly what the poster said. If you watched the video that I posted as a response, you would have a much better view of the situation to form an opinion on... as is, it really does not appear you evenwatched the origianlyl posted video this thread was about.

 

[Malintent]

How he gonna get his laundry hamper?
‘He started crying like a little baby’: 11-year-old brags about shooting suspected home invader
Not only is the burglar going to jail, but boy will this not do any favors to his street cred!

As much as I am against leftist overreach about self defense (like prosecuting or fining a woman for using mace against an attempted rapist) this is a ridiculous case. If this were an adult outside of the south who shot a fleeing burglar, he would be at great risk for a prison sentence.

Nope... in Alabama you can shoot a person that is engaged in robbery. The kid shot the guy while still on his property, and while still carrying the stolen goods. It is only the left-most opinion of the minority that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rights.

 

[Malintent]

It can also be said that not being able to defend your own house is a sad state too.

So you put a human life as less than a television, too? That is sad.

And for her reasonableness, the statue explicitly says that a person can have the reasonable belief that someone entering a house is assumed to be dangerous.

IF AND ONLY IF she was in the house and he was in or coming in the house. Neither of those conditions were present in the OP. How many times do you need to be told that?

Raven, you must assume that someone that is breaking into a home intends to do harm to anyone in the home that might get in their way. That is a reasonable assumption (as much as you may not like that fact, it is indeed a fact and codified in law, due to the statistics supporting it).

What is truly sad, is that you seem to be putting the life of a robber above the life of a law-abiding homeowner that is not looking for trouble... just in case that maybe... maybe.. the robber might not rape and kill like the majority do... maybe.. just maybe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is only the left-most opinion of the minority people who I don't like that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rightshumans generally have more inherent value than property.

FIFY.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. You are the one trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill by trying to say that word force has to be something other than just opening a window.

Sorry, words have meaning. Do you think the legislature simply was bullshitting when it included the "and forced"?

By your reasoning if someone is in your house you either need to ask the person if they came through an open door or window or you kindly ask them to stop while you go and investigate how they got into your house. And your other reasoning was that if I am in my house and hear someone downstairs and I go to look then I am in the wrong because I started the confrontation instead of the person entering the house.

Those are straw men stemming from your lack of reason.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Sorry, words have meaning. Do you think the legislature simply was bullshitting when it included the "and forced"?

By your reasoning if someone is in your house you either need to ask the person if they came through an open door or window or you kindly ask them to stop while you go and investigate how they got into your house. And your other reasoning was that if I am in my house and hear someone downstairs and I go to look then I am in the wrong because I started the confrontation instead of the person entering the house.

Those are straw men stemming from your lack of reason.

It defines force in another section. It includes home invasion robbery.

- - - Updated - - -

It is only the left-most opinion of the minority people who I don't like that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rightshumans generally have more inherent value than property.

FIFY.

To be fair, in the Supreme Court case one left wing judge did say it was okay to shoot a fleeing suspect.

 

[coloradoatheist]

By your reasoning, is it incumbent on the home owner to 100% verify that the person coming into their house used some type of force to enter the house?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As much as I am against leftist overreach about self defense (like prosecuting or fining a woman for using mace against an attempted rapist) this is a ridiculous case. If this were an adult outside of the south who shot a fleeing burglar, he would be at great risk for a prison sentence.

Nope... in Alabama you can shoot a person that is engaged in robbery. The kid shot the guy while still on his property, and while still carrying the stolen goods. It is only the left-most opinion of the minority that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rights.

Some of us have a problem with shooting a bad guy that clearly doesn't pose a threat.

 

[bilby]

As much as I am against leftist overreach about self defense (like prosecuting or fining a woman for using mace against an attempted rapist) this is a ridiculous case. If this were an adult outside of the south who shot a fleeing burglar, he would be at great risk for a prison sentence.

Nope... in Alabama you can shoot a person that is engaged in robbery. The kid shot the guy while still on his property, and while still carrying the stolen goods. It is only the left-most opinion of the minority that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rights.

Yeah. What kind of pinko scum would declare that people have the right to life?

Out of interest, if in your view the right not to be shot dead is an 'elevated' right, what would be an ordinary non-elevated right?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To be fair, in the Supreme Court case one left wing judge did say it was okay to shoot a fleeing suspect.

While I don't particularly think anyone on the Supreme Court is "left-wing," I am still not convinced that property > human life.

 

[RavenSky]

No one was defending their house in those situations. Stop being ridiculous.

And for her reasonableness, the statue explicitly says that a person can have the reasonable belief that someone entering a house is assumed to be dangerous.

As has been pointed out numerous times, that is not quite accurate. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension?

Nope. You are the one trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill by trying to say that word force has to be something other than just opening a window. By your reasoning if someone is in your house you either need to ask the person if they came through an open door or window or you kindly ask them to stop while you go and investigate how they got into your house. And your other reasoning was that if I am in my house and hear someone downstairs and I go to look then I am in the wrong because I started the confrontation instead of the person entering the house.

Wow, you certainly know how to read in a lot of nonsense he never said/implied.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No one was defending their house in those situations. Stop being ridiculous.

And for her reasonableness, the statue explicitly says that a person can have the reasonable belief that someone entering a house is assumed to be dangerous.

As has been pointed out numerous times, that is not quite accurate. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension?

Nope. You are the one trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill by trying to say that word force has to be something other than just opening a window. By your reasoning if someone is in your house you either need to ask the person if they came through an open door or window or you kindly ask them to stop while you go and investigate how they got into your house. And your other reasoning was that if I am in my house and hear someone downstairs and I go to look then I am in the wrong because I started the confrontation instead of the person entering the house.

Wow, you certainly know how to read in a lot of nonsense he never said/implied.

No. He is trying to say that force must be applied for the clause to kick in. How would the home owner know if force is or not applied when someone is inside the house? The only way to do that would be to ask for a timeout, go investigate all the windows and doors and make sure that at least one of them had been broken. If that isn't the case then the home owner would have to say, sorry to have bothered you go, go ahead and and enjoy your stay in the house. Did the writers of the law intend that for the in house force clause? That's his argument.


The whole question is about when the threat starts and when it officially ends. You want it to end earlier.

 

[laughing dog]

No. He is trying to say that force must be applied for the clause to kick in. How would the home owner know if force is or not applied when someone is inside the house? The only way to do that would be to ask for a timeout, go investigate all the windows and doors and make sure that at least one of them had been broken. If that isn't the case then the home owner would have to say, sorry to have bothered you go, go ahead and and enjoy your stay in the house. Did the writers of the law intend that for the in house force clause? That's his argument.

My argument is that the statute is confusing. Your straw men, misreadings and mischaracterizations support my argument.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No. He is trying to say that force must be applied for the clause to kick in. How would the home owner know if force is or not applied when someone is inside the house? The only way to do that would be to ask for a timeout, go investigate all the windows and doors and make sure that at least one of them had been broken. If that isn't the case then the home owner would have to say, sorry to have bothered you go, go ahead and and enjoy your stay in the house. Did the writers of the law intend that for the in house force clause? That's his argument.

My argument is that the statute is confusing. Your straw men, misreadings and mischaracterizations support my argument.

And I disagree. Do you think they wanted to make it confusing so that a homeowner wouldn't know if she or he could defend their inside of their home?

 

[laughing dog]

My argument is that the statute is confusing. Your straw men, misreadings and mischaracterizations support my argument.

And I disagree. Do you think they wanted to make it confusing so that a homeowner wouldn't know if she or he could defend their inside of their home?

It is confusing -as your responses indicate. I have no idea what the legislative intent was.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And I disagree. Do you think they wanted to make it confusing so that a homeowner wouldn't know if she or he could defend their inside of their home?

It is confusing -as your responses indicate. I have no idea what the legislative intent was.

You are trying to make it more confusing then if someone is breaking into your house you can assume they are doing it it with bad intents.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As much as I am against leftist overreach about self defense (like prosecuting or fining a woman for using mace against an attempted rapist) this is a ridiculous case. If this were an adult outside of the south who shot a fleeing burglar, he would be at great risk for a prison sentence.

Nope... in Alabama you can shoot a person that is engaged in robbery. The kid shot the guy while still on his property, and while still carrying the stolen goods. It is only the left-most opinion of the minority that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rights.

Since when is not getting shot / killed when not presenting a clear and present danger considered an "elevated right"? Pretty certain leftists don't think the perpetrator shouldn't be held accountable for theft if they are caught outside the property they robbed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nope... in Alabama you can shoot a person that is engaged in robbery. The kid shot the guy while still on his property, and while still carrying the stolen goods. It is only the left-most opinion of the minority that seems to think criminals should have some kind of elevated rights.

Some of us have a problem with shooting a bad guy that clearly doesn't pose a threat.

HOLY FUCK!!!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Some of us have a problem with shooting a bad guy that clearly doesn't pose a threat.

HOLY FUCK!!!

Yep, but the disagreement is on when it changes.

 

[laughing dog]

It is confusing -as your responses indicate. I have no idea what the legislative intent was.

You are trying to make it more confusing then if someone is breaking into your house you can assume they are doing it it with bad intents.

Your problem is with the law as written. It is confusing, which is probably why your responses are so confused.