A teenager knocked on the wrong door. Now he’s dead, and the homeowner is accused of murder.

[Pogo]

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

Link or quote to what? I merely stated what another poster was saying. I don't share that opinion b/c frankly I didn't read the entire thread, only a few pages

Then maybe you should before you put your foot in your mouth.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

Link or quote to what? I merely stated what another poster was saying. I don't share that opinion b/c frankly I didn't read the entire thread, only a few pages

Then maybe you should before you put your foot in your mouth.

You truly are stupid.

I didn't put my foot in my mouth.

I clarified what ANOTHER poster was saying b/c it was quite evident that you are illiterate and didn't understand. Nothing more.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Drunk kids

Story focuses on twisted facts

Then we wonder where the breakdown in our society is....

 

[TNHarley]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

but you cant just let them walk in.. Hindsight is 20/20..

 

[Pogo]

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

Link or quote to what? I merely stated what another poster was saying. I don't share that opinion b/c frankly I didn't read the entire thread, only a few pages

Then maybe you should before you put your foot in your mouth.

You truly are stupid.

I didn't put my foot in my mouth.

I clarified what ANOTHER poster was saying b/c it was quite evident that you are illiterate and didn't understand. Nothing more.

And I asked for a quote. And got ...... nothing more.
What are you, Edgar Allan Poe?

 

[jc456]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

 

[Auld Phart]

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years.

You keep repeating that, yet you still havent' answered my earlier questions about 15 y/o being adult size.

I got the age wrong by 2 years, BFD

I've got 2 grandsons that were taller than my 5'8" at age 15.

 

[Fang]

Need more information on this one. All we have is drunk teenagers, glass broke (by who? how?) and home owner firing his gun and killing one of them.

 

[jc456]

People get arrested all the time and charged all the time without being guilty of the charges they are arrested for. In this case, I would make an educated guess that the police and/or the District Attorney didn't feel circumstances merited him using his gun. That doesn't mean they didn't, nor that a jury will agree with them, nor that he'll end up in prison for it.

Are you really this clueless as to how our justice system or you just so blinded by your shear ignorance and bias that you just don't care.

And that's why I said "arraigned". Nothing further has been established.
"Arraignment" is not "conviction" --- but if I were a betting man.....

None of that is relevant to the point of all these gun-happy events being part of a pattern. Apparently you're trying to deflect that away with some tangent. Like you tried to deflect the communication question. Another pattern.

You deemed him guilty the moment you read the article, assuming you even read it. Your very own words, on repeated occasion, which have been reprinted for you, very clearly acknowledge your own conviction of this home owner and you continue to deny it because you are a dishonest and dishonorable person.

AGAIN --- I don't have the power to "convict", unless I'm on the jury, which hasn't been picked yet. I said "arraigned", which is factual. You're still trying to deflect off to unworkable semantics to avoid the point of the pattern. Even after being called on it.

You absolutey have the power to convict him in your mind, which is obviously what Don't Taze ME Bro was referring to. You just apparently either can't read, or are dishonest.

Link?
Quote?

Anything?

He's picking out side details as a deflection in order to distract from my point, which is the pattern of all these incidents. Which I listed after he denied there is one.

Other posters have fabricated the size of the victim, what he was doing, even gave him two extra years. Now we got one who thinks he can read my mind.

sorry, but, really? You think he's as guilty as much as you love your favorite food. This entire thread is the link you're looking for. Quotes are also mightily in here and don't taze me has presented them already which you have conveniently avoided and ignored.

 

[Auld Phart]

Need more information on this one. All we have is drunk teenagers, glass broke (by who? how?) and home owner firing his gun and killing one of them.

couple of articles from yahoo FP

Yahoo

 

[Fair&Balanced]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

but you cant just let them walk in.. Hindsight is 20/20..

Oh for sure. That's what I said, if the guy just took a shot without attempting to engage the person. I don't like that at all, and in noway think it should be legal. On the other hand, if the guy confronted the teenager and s/he kept advancing even with a gun pointed at them, then that could be another matter , depending on other factors.

 

[Preacher]

More lives wasted thanks to a paranoid gun owner.

A teenager knocked on the wrong door. Now he’s dead, and the homeowner is accused of murder.

Two teenagers were drinking in Chicopee, Mass., Saturday afternoon when they set off to find a friend, according to authorities. Whether it was the booze or the sheer similarity of the neighborhood’s low-slung homes, the teens somehow ended up at the wrong house.

One of the teenagers, a 15-year-old boy, banged on the door.

Suddenly, a gunshot rang out from inside the house, and the boy slumped on the porch with a bullet to his belly.

The boy died at a hospital. He has not yet been identified.

The homeowner, 42-year-old Jeffrey Lovell, was arrested and charged with murder, according to the Chicopee Police Department.

When a pane of glass broke, the suspect fired a single shot, striking the victim,” according to the statement from the Hampden DA’s office.

That's breaking and entering or burglary in SANE states we are allowed to defend our homes! Oh and it's also why 15 year old lotions shouldn't drink and their parents should be parents and keep track of them and keep them out of trouble

 

[Fang]

Need more information on this one. All we have is drunk teenagers, glass broke (by who? how?) and home owner firing his gun and killing one of them.

couple of articles from yahoo FP

Yahoo

That's the same article I just read.

Lovell initially tried to communicate with the teenager knocking on his door, prosecutors said. But then he snapped.
“When a pane of glass broke, the suspect fired a single shot, striking the victim,” according to the statement from the Hampden DA’s office.

Seems pretty vague to me. There's not that much information in it to really formulate an opinion either way.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

 

[jc456]

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

but you cant just let them walk in.. Hindsight is 20/20..

Oh for sure. That's what I said, if the guy just took a shot without attempting to engage the person. I don't like that at all, and in noway think it should be legal. On the other hand, if the guy confronted the teenager and s/he kept advancing even with a gun pointed at them, then that could be another matter , depending on other factors.

exactly, like was the window busted after initial conversation. If so, that would justify a threat, moving after discussion. It seems our youth believe they are sometimes above respect. See, if indeed it was someone looking for a friend, then why break a window on your friends house? See the conflict there? Is that what one really does to a friend's house?

Although, I have had a run in with a similar occurrence as this one. Except it was my neighbor's house and i called the cops. The kid in my encounter drove his car into the fire hydrant in the front of my yard, and kicked in the car door on my neighbor's truck in the driveway. He was 16, driving on something, cops couldn't tell us exactly what, but thought he was at his house. He did try and get into the neighbor's house at one point. Didn't get in though. I think he was lucky he didn't.

 

[jc456]

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

It's the stand my ground law, and you're right different states have different areas of property. I have no idea on this one, but the glass break is curious since that is an attempt at entry and matches most if not all of the stand my ground laws.

 

[Preacher]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Prosecutors said there was a verbal exchange. They also indicated glass was broken.

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

 

[Fang]

"Murder"? Bullshit.

But use of lethal force was not justified. One wonders what the verbal exchange was - if there was one.

Prosecutors said there was a verbal exchange. They also indicated glass was broken.

So? He shot him through the door. Was not defense. Kid is dead and this moron is going to jail.

Were you there?

Does it matter? He shot an unarmed kid through the door. That is pathetic and unacceptable in a civil society.

Breaking into someone's house is unacceptable is a civil society as well and we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes

The article I read (the one provided) never says if the teenagers were trying to break into the house.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

but you cant just let them walk in.. Hindsight is 20/20..

Oh for sure. That's what I said, if the guy just took a shot without attempting to engage the person. I don't like that at all, and in noway think it should be legal. On the other hand, if the guy confronted the teenager and s/he kept advancing even with a gun pointed at them, then that could be another matter , depending on other factors.

exactly, like was the window busted after initial conversation. If so, that would justify a threat, moving after discussion. It seems our youth believe they are sometimes above respect. See, if indeed it was someone looking for a friend, then why break a window on your friends house? See the conflict there? Is that one really does to a friend's house?

I'm with you in that I don't think we know enough to judge this particular case, but in general, I believe a drunk teenage girl should probably be given the benefit of the doubt before being shot. Don't you? And, I'm quite sure you have been drunk in your lifetime and done things that weren't sane, or courteous. I know I have.

 

[jc456]

Glass broke. I would have shot too.. Aint no drunk stranger forcing himself in my home!

what if she was attractive? Would you shoot her or just disappear her?

Seriously though, Shooting someone over STUFF is stupid. Whether legal or not.However, if they were face to face and s/he kept coming after being told to stop. Too bad.

My family is more than stuff.

Of course, but there is a difference between someone breaking in and stealing your TV or whatever and someone advancing on your kids with a knife. In the former I wouldn't shoot, the latter, I'd blow their heads off.

the idea though is not to come into the house and present the threat. all one needs to do is present a threat. You realize that right?

Untrue. It varies state by state, but in most cases simply feeling threatened doesn't give license to commit homicide. The right to self defense does not mean "Hey I was scared someone was breaking into my house , so I legally shot them" It means you have a valid fear for your own life and limb. Or the life and safety of others.

Or do you contend that your life is in danger just by virtue of someone breaking into your home? Please tell me you aren't that cowardly.

and yes, my house is my house. you merely try and break in gives me all the right to blow your head off. You should probably go read the stand my ground laws better.