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

[Fang]

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.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.

I read the "The Castle Law In Massachusetts" information. I'm still convinced my questions absolutely matter. The home owner is not required to retreat. But my questions are aimed at determining if there was any threat at all. Did the home owner have a reason to ever retreat?

 

[jc456]

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.

LOL you don't even understand which laws apply. Castle Doctrine applies here, not stand your ground.


Here's the Mass law

s a general rule in Massachusetts, the right to use force in defense of oneself or another arises only in circumstances where the person using self-defense avails himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat. However, G.L. c. 278, § 8A represents an exception to this rule. The law provides a defense to the occupant of a dwelling house who is charged with causing injury or death to an intruder. In order to qualify for this affirmative defense, the person charged with injuring or killing the intruder must provide the following three things (1) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was unlawfully entering the dwelling, (2) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon the defendant or someone else who is lawfully in the dwelling, and (3) the defendant acted with reasonable means of self-defense or defense of another person who was lawfully present.


So the question is "Would a reasonable person have believed the teenager in question was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone legally living in the house"

My opinion is no. Was the girl screaming "im going to kill you" or anything like that? Did the teenager have a weapon that the homeowner saw?

See, you idiots are stupid, you don't even know the law, in MASS specificially you can't just shoot someone who breaks into your house. They must also present a reasonable danger. Simply breaking into the house isn't presenting a reasonable danger.

The “Castle” Law in Massachusetts

And in fact stupid, Massachusetts has a duty to retreat law, in COMPLETE contrast to a stand your ground law.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw

Educate yourself. I mean my God, you have the internet right there at your fingertips.

well I found this version of the castle doctrine from a law office:

The Castle Law In Massachusetts, A Valid Defense To Murder

"Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278 §8A provides a defense to someone who is being prosecuted for Murder in Massachusetts. The law states that it is a recognized defense for anyone who is the occupant of a dwelling and is charged with killing someone who was not lawfully in the home so long as he acted with the reasonable belief that this person was about to inflict death or great bodily injury on him or on someone else who was lawfully in the home. This law does not require a duty to retreat. Even though this is a defense to the most serious crime in Massachusetts there are some extreme limitations to its use. The Castle Law takes root in English Common Law where a belief was held that “one’s home is one’s castle”. Some states apply the doctrine to places outside of the dwelling. For instance one’s car or workplace are in some states considered sacred ground making available the defense."

Correct, the Castle Doctrine over rides the Duty to retreat laws, on your own property. As I posted above. You can actually walk out on your porch and confront a person who is on your property and if they attack you and you kill them, that is legal.

which is this scenario if the window was broken by the kids. fits it like a glove.

No it does not because NO reasonable person thinks "oh shit those kids broke my window, they want to kill me" and thus there is no right to shoot them.

Read the ENTIRE law. There are THREE elements, all MUST be met.

yeah, and again, it's the drunk part that comes into play. the reasonable person thingy goes away in this scenario. impaired can imply out of control.

 

[Pogo]

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

So is fabricating stories with no evidence, and the truth has a right to defend ITself.

You've already determined the story is fabricated because you hate guns. From the news story we know four things. Drunk kid, broken windows, conversation, drunk kid shot because homeowner felt the need to do so. You ignore the broken windows and conversation.

On the contrary, I was the first to call out the whole "conversation" canard (four times) and everybody who tried to float that canard ran away. I've also been pointing out relentlessly that nobody knows the circumstances of the broken glass, which is also a fact.

"Fabricating stories" refers to making the kid "adult sized" on no evidence (that poster ran away too), giving him two extra years, and contriving that if a "glass broke" he must have been "breaking in" -- again on no evidence.

You don't get to just make it up because you want the story to go your way. Doesn't work like that. As another poster put it:

You damn sure can't make that determination on his/her behalf. You seem to think you can.

Oh wait -- that was you.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The homeowner might should have waited until the kid actually got into the house.

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

 

[jc456]

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

it adds credence to a threat, drunk people change personalities while drunk, it's why men beat women most often while they're drunk. Or do you think not? It adds to the threat, and comes into play. sorry, it does.

Ever see a mean drunk before?

 

[HUGGY]

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.

If the "boys" broke glass their story of "just trying to find their friend" is bullshit. They are lying. Their intent was to invade someone's home. A home owner is not the police. The home owner does not have to see a weapon. All the home owner needs to do is ascertain the intent of the intruder as best he/she can. I see "breaking glass" as intending to do harm. My only real problem is that there is no report of warnings haven been given by the home owner.

"When a glass broke..." is completely passive voice. It doesn't give any indication of WHO or WHAT broke the glass, whether it was intentional or accidental, or if the former what the intent would have been. So no, you can't conclude that.

But if you think you're psychic and can read minds, what number am I thinking right now?

There is too little information to regard the breaking glass as having no meaning. The "knocking" alone is a message. It says there is a human being at the door. Now this human being should have reasonable caution not to ramp up the home owners anxiety by breaking glass. That invites a defensive response.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.

I read the "The Castle Law In Massachusetts" information. I'm still convinced my questions absolutely matter. The home owner is not required to retreat. But my questions are aimed at determining if there was any threat at all. Did the home owner have a reason to ever retreat?

Again, you are missing the reasonable force portion of the law. You have to REASONABLY fear for your life or fear great bodily harm before you can legally use deadly force. That's the law.

Say someone kicks your door in and slaps you in the face, are you under the impression that you can legally shoot and kill that person?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

sure it does, drunk people change personalities while drunk, it's why men beat women most often while they're drunk. Or do you think not? It adds to the threat, and comes into play. sorry, it does.

Ever see a mean drunk before?

It doesn't come into play in terms of reasonable belief. Because your reasonable belief has to be based on the intruder's actions, not the fact that they are drunk.

Take two scenarios.

1. A drunk person breaks in your home and eats all your candy

2. a sober person breaks in your home and pulls out a gun.

Obviously the sober person presents a danger, while the drunk does not. Now , maybe you are right and at some the drunk WILL present a danger b/c they are drunk, but they are not a reasonable danger just by virtue of being drunk.

 

[jc456]

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

There isn't but one person that can make the determination of whether or not such an event was happening. It's the owner. That means the article doesn't have to say it. Only thing that matters is if the owner believed it was happening.

Nope. The owner can believe or say anything he wants. But by no means does that mean he's not guilty of murder.

- What was said between the home owner and the teenagers?
- How did the glass break?
- Who broke the glass?
- Do these people have history, or was this the first time they met?
- Did the teenagers get into the house? We're they advancing on the house?
- How drunk were they?
- Were the teenagers aggressive?
- How far from this house did the friend live?
- Were there other people on the street? Kids and parents outside playing? Or was this a secluded porch?

NONE of that is relevant to the applicable state law. Absolutely NONE of it.

I read the "The Castle Law In Massachusetts" information. I'm still convinced my questions absolutely matter. The home owner is not required to retreat. But my questions are aimed at determining if there was any threat at all. Did the home owner have a reason to ever retreat?

Again, you are missing the reasonable force portion of the law. You have to REASONABLY fear for your life or fear great bodily harm before you can legally use deadly force. That's the law.

Say someone kicks your door in and slaps you in the face, are you under the impression that you can legally shoot and kill that person?

what is reasonable? how does one rate that %? I'm curious how that works.

 

[boedicca]

True. He might still be waiting today, as there's no indication that's what he was doing.

But then he does sound like the sort who sits by the door armed waiting for the mailman.

Where are all the advocates of "responsible gun ownership" here? Laying low?

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

That is nuts. If someone broke a window to get into my house, I wouldn't assume they were there to just say howdy.

Jeebus, no wonder we can't defend our country anymore when we question someone's right to defend his home and himself.

 

[Pogo]

There is too little information to regard the breaking glass as having no meaning.

Yes, there is too little. That's why the story puts it in passive voice: "when a pane of glass broke", with no actor or apparent intent, because it isn't known.

That also means you don't get to just make it up because you'd like the script to go a certain way. We're not writing screenplays here.

Now this human being should have reasonable caution not to ramp up the home owners anxiety by breaking glass. That invites a defensive response.

Again, you just pointed out yourself you don't know WHO broke the glass, so you don't know it "ramped up the homeowner's anxiety". Again, you're making up shit that isn't there.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, the Castle Doctrine applies on your property OUTSIDE your home, as well as inside. In fact , if someone were out on your porch threatening to kill you and you walked outside and confronted them and then they attacked you, and you shot and killed them, that would be legal.

Once again, you people need to educate yourselves.

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

That is nuts. If someone broke a window to get into my house, I wouldn't assume they were there to just say howdy.

Jeebus, no wonder we can't defend our country anymore when we question someone's right to defend his home and himself.

There is NO evidence ANYBODY "broke a window to get into anybody's house". NONE. ZERO.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Uhhh a teenager knocked on my door and broke the window...some window. So I shot the door

That entire door is a window!

 

[jc456]

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

sure it does, drunk people change personalities while drunk, it's why men beat women most often while they're drunk. Or do you think not? It adds to the threat, and comes into play. sorry, it does.

Ever see a mean drunk before?

It doesn't come into play in terms of reasonable belief. Because your reasonable belief has to be based on the intruder's actions, not the fact that they are drunk.

Take two scenarios.

1. A drunk person breaks in your home and eats all your candy

2. a sober person breaks in your home and pulls out a gun.

Obviously the sober person presents a danger, while the drunk does not. Now , maybe you are right and at some the drunk WILL present a danger b/c they are drunk, but they are not a reasonable danger just by virtue of being drunk.

so you've never seen a mean drunk? well, bubba, it's real. And it is considered a tool to threaten others.

 

[jc456]

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

That is nuts. If someone broke a window to get into my house, I wouldn't assume they were there to just say howdy.

Jeebus, no wonder we can't defend our country anymore when we question someone's right to defend his home and himself.

There is NO evidence ANYBODY "broke a window to get into anybody's house". NONE. ZERO.

how do you know? are all the facts out? were they drunk? was it actually a friend's house excuse?

 

[boedicca]

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

That is nuts. If someone broke a window to get into my house, I wouldn't assume they were there to just say howdy.

Jeebus, no wonder we can't defend our country anymore when we question someone's right to defend his home and himself.

There is NO evidence ANYBODY "broke a window to get into anybody's house". NONE. ZERO.

Certainly that is what the liberal biased media likely wish to portray. "A pane of glass was broken". If the homeowner broke it, they wouldn't have used the passive voice. The Pane of Glass didn't just shatter on it's own.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Look at braindead trying to spin what happened
Hey dumbfuck, if your premise wasn't so flawed, you wouldn't have to be so dishonest

Hey stupid, you are defending a guy charged with murder. That is just sad.

So now we're guilty until proven innocent? So not only do you disapprove of the Second Amendment, but evidently the Fifth as well.

And now you know why sensible people don't want authoritarians like you running the country.

The guy just shot dead an unarmed kid through a door. The people who know the most are choosing to charge him with murder. You don't find it sick that anyone would be defending this guy? You guys really need mental help.

Oh, you mean like the DA charging the cops in the Freddie Gray case? She's 0 for 4 and the others aren't looking good either.

 

[Pogo]

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

That is nuts. If someone broke a window to get into my house, I wouldn't assume they were there to just say howdy.

Jeebus, no wonder we can't defend our country anymore when we question someone's right to defend his home and himself.

There is NO evidence ANYBODY "broke a window to get into anybody's house". NONE. ZERO.

Certainly that is what the liberal biased media likely wish to portray. "A pane of glass was broken". If the homeowner broke it, they wouldn't have used the passive voice. The Pane of Glass didn't just shatter on it's own.

Ah, so when the factual text is pointed out it becomes "poison the well" time. If it had said the kid was breaking in, it would be cited as gospel.

Having it both ways --- Priceless.

It's passive voice because the actor and circumstances are not known. If they knew them, rest assured they'd use that drama to sell two more papers. Passive voice don't sell no papers.

 

[HUGGY]

There is too little information to regard the breaking glass as having no meaning.

Yes, there is too little. That's why the story puts it in passive voice: "when a pane of glass broke", with no actor or apparent intent, because it isn't known.

That also means you don't get to just make it up because you'd like the script to go a certain way. We're not writing screenplays here.

Now this human being should have reasonable caution not to ramp up the home owners anxiety by breaking glass. That invites a defensive response.

Again, you just pointed out yourself you don't know WHO broke the glass, so you don't know it "ramped up the homeowner's anxiety". Again, you're making up shit that isn't there.

No. You know someone is there with less than good intentions. Unless the house is on fire and the home owner doesn't know it there is NO good reason to break into the house.. Even IF the house is on fire the "someone" needs to make their intentions clear BEFORE breaking anything. That's why the police yell "POLICE!!!!" loudly several times BEFORE entering a home. They do not just knock and immediately start breaking in.

Without having been there ...to me the boys were lying and they were already breaking the law being drunk. Drunk and breaking in. Two wrongs don't make a right. Screw em. Open fire. I would have emptied a clip and reloaded.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once again, you need to read the story before you put your foot in your mouth. Nowhere is any indication of a "threat", let alone a "death threat".

You dumb fuck, at NO point did I say there was. In fact quite the opposite I posted that in this case we just don't know enough to know what happened, but have been talking in generalities about what the Mass law does and does not allow. You are just an ignorant fuck who can't understand simple English, that's why you first misread what Don't Taze Me Bro wrote, and now you misread what I have wrote in this thread.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life.

In fact, I actually posted that if the girl DID break a window that doesn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable fear for someone's life

yeah, but you got the whole drunk thingy to deal with as well and that has weight on her thought process and behavior.

Her being drunk has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.. Did she pose a REASONABLE threat to the safety of anyone legally living in the home" Breaking a window poses no reasonable threat. Now perhaps if she broke the window while screaming "I'll kill every person in this house" or something like that a reasonable person might say "well that might have been fearful" but I hven't seen any evidence of anything beyond a broken window.

That is nuts. If someone broke a window to get into my house, I wouldn't assume they were there to just say howdy.

Jeebus, no wonder we can't defend our country anymore when we question someone's right to defend his home and himself.

There is NO evidence ANYBODY "broke a window to get into anybody's house". NONE. ZERO.

The window just spontaneously broke on its own?