It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by cripmeister
Doesn't really matter if it's a lie does it? The guy was in his house wasn't he?
Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by cripmeister
If the guy was IN the house, he didnt have a leg to stand on. If he was outside then the homeowner was in the wrong. Its that simple.
Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said the 35-year-old intruder was trying to pry open a window when he was spotted by a man who lives there. The occupant, his wife, and two young girls were in the home at the time.
Read more: www.abc15.com...
Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Originally posted by dl2oneThe2nd
good job. he could have been in the daughters room, he could've been a terrorist, he could've been the antichrist. now at least he is none of those.. ever
He also could have just been messed up.
Had he been arrested instead of killed he may have gone to jail and sorted his life out, when he came out he could have cured cancer or gone on to write inspirational books that deterred other kids from making the same mistakes he did.
Now he wont do any of those.... ever
How sick is your culture that your all happy hes dead
Originally posted by oonkala
I will be amazed if the lawyers don't find a way to prosecute the man for protecting himself.
Do you remember the robber who fell on a kitchen knife while robbing a home and sued and won.
Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by cripmeister
If the guy was IN the house, he didnt have a leg to stand on. If he was outside then the homeowner was in the wrong. Its that simple.
3-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304,manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
Arizona's SB 1145, as passed by the House and signed recently by the Governor.
A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they are another are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Again, no duty to retreat. (I don't think this changes the law any, since if a person reasonably believes themselves in imminent peril they are justified in using deadly force whether in a house or anywhere else).
If the guy was IN the house, he didnt have a leg to stand on. If he was outside then the homeowner was in the wrong. Its that simple
Originally posted by guohua
Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by cripmeister
If the guy was IN the house, he didnt have a leg to stand on. If he was outside then the homeowner was in the wrong. Its that simple.
Are you taking about Arizona?
3-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304,manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
www.azleg.state.az.us...
Originally posted by Twilightgem
... (text removed)...
Until we feel safe in our quiet homes the issue of guns will not be resolved
Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by cripmeister
If the guy was IN the house, he didnt have a leg to stand on. If he was outside then the homeowner was in the wrong. Its that simple.
Originally posted by GrandStrategy
This is a great example of gun ownership? Reading the story, it sounds like he's just slaughtered in cold blood some poor mentally ill person.
Are you people for real? Shooting the mentally deranged is good? The mentally ill deserve death?
Every time I come to ATS my hope in humanity drops a little. Shooting a common criminal dead in cold blood is bad enough, to do it to some random crazy, probably too out of it to know any better, just smh.
You know what would happen in reasonable nations? He'd have been arrested and given the help he needs.
What the hell would Jesus say
Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by GrandStrategy
Burglary of an occupied dwelling is not a petty crime. Most states consider it a serious felony. So, what would you do if you woke to find a man breaking in to your daughters room? Offer him tea and crumpets?
It's a petty crime. I don't care what most states consider it. Most states operate prisons as a means of slave labour and have idiotic laws like 3 strikes and the death penalty.
Originally posted by cripmeister
Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by cripmeister
If the guy was IN the house, he didnt have a leg to stand on. If he was outside then the homeowner was in the wrong. Its that simple.
Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said the 35-year-old intruder was trying to pry open a window when he was spotted by a man who lives there. The occupant, his wife, and two young girls were in the home at the time.
Read more: www.abc15.com...
I assumed everyone actually read the article that was the basis for this discussion, I was wrong.
A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they are another are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto.
Originally posted by Mamatus
Wait! Should the homeowner not have grabbed his daughter and withdrawn to a safe room where he could call the police for help?
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by cripmeister
Doesn't really matter if it's a lie does it? The guy was in his house wasn't he?
Why would the homeowner make something like "reached into his pants" up when it wasn't required? The guy broke into his house, so the homeowner was already justified.edit on 2-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by severdsoul
reply to post by JarheadFidelis
not really , not quite that simple, as the article
states the home owner saw the perp put his hand
in his pocket, which would give him just cause,
the perp could of been going for a weapon, hence
self defence