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

[ClosedCaption]

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

That entire door is a window!

LMAO

 

[Pogo]

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.

ONCE AGAIN --- maybe it just needs to be writ larger...

There is NO evidence of ANYBODY "breaking into anybody's house". NONE. ZERO.

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.

Informative. And you'd be in the same shit the perp is now, and rightly so. You don't just blow people away though your front door, and you ain't a mindreader. One of your "two wrongs" is entirely made up. And it's the crucial one.

Again, just as in the previous cases cited --- Montana, Louisiana, Michigan ... the gun nut apologists trot in their usual blame-the-victim "convictions" --- "he/she was drunk"... "somebody broke a glass".... "she was black"... "she was a slut"... "he was Japanese"... "he was 'breaking in' ..... all to defend the emotional attachment to Almighty Gun, even if it means the death of a child.

Y'all are transparent as a pane of glass. Before it breaks.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

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?

So you think you can determine more not being there than someone that was there?

 

[jc456]

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.

yep, howdy, here, I'm going to break a window on your house just so you know I love you.

 

[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.

When the glass breaks we are passed the point of needing to see picture I D. Reasonable assumption of INTENT trumps need for more information before defending property and life.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Incorrect. You don't know what someone in stupid enough to break into your house is capable of doing. Being drunk doesn't take away anything nor is it an excuse.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

When the glass breaks we are passed the point of needing to see picture I D. Reasonable assumption of INTENT trumps need for more information before defending property and life.

I don't have to wait to find out whether or not they are going to do something if they break a window. All I need to know is that someone uninvited did so.

 

[jc456]

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.

dude, your reading skills are terrible. no one is saying anything to which you're implying.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The only opinion that matters when it comes to the broken glass is the owner. What you think is irrelevant. If the owner considered what broke the glass a threat, the owner has the right to defend against that threat. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. You weren't there. The owner was.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

ONCE AGAIN --- maybe it just needs to be writ larger...

There is NO evidence of ANYBODY "breaking into anybody's house". NONE. ZERO.

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.

Informative. And you'd be in the same shit the perp is now, and rightly so. You don't just blow people away though your front door, and you ain't a mindreader. One of your "two wrongs" is entirely made up. And it's the crucial one.

So you are saying nobody broke glass after knocking? There was JUST knocking then gunfire? That's crazy. You are saying that the dude KNEW it was just some rowdy teens and started blazing away.

 

[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.

When the glass breaks we are passed the point of needing to see picture I D. Reasonable assumption of INTENT trumps need for more information before defending property and life.

You're saying the victim had grounds to defend himself from a shot coming out from behind the door? You must be, since nobody knows who broke the glass or how.

So I guess that means you can walk up to a door and blast away from the outside, on the suspicion that the guy inside might be pointing a gun at you.

See where this gun fetish mentality leads?

Nah, you probably don't.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The only opinion that matters when it comes to the broken glass is the owner. What you think is irrelevant. If the owner considered what broke the glass a threat, the owner has the right to defend against that threat. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. You weren't there. The owner was.

NOR WERE YOU so you don't know the circumstances. How do you know the owner himself didn't break the glass?
YOU DON'T.

 

[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.

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.

Incorrect. You don't know what someone in stupid enough to break into your house is capable of doing. Being drunk doesn't take away anything nor is it an excuse.

Once again --- THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY "BREAKING IN". DOES NOT APPLY.

 

[boedicca]

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.

A Pane of Glass was broken, and you jumped to the conclusion that the homeowner inside was to blame.

And Passive Voice is used frequently in the Liberal Press in order to depersonalize the crime and separate the perpetrator from the act.

For example:

Truck runs down crowd in Nice, France, at least 77 killed

Truck runs down crowd in Nice, France, at least 77 killed [PHOTOS]


The Truck didn't run down the crowd. An Islamic Terrorist used a truck to murder people.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Incorrect. You don't know what someone in stupid enough to break into your house is capable of doing. Being drunk doesn't take away anything nor is it an excuse.

Once again --- THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY "BREAKING IN". DOES NOT APPLY.

What the homeowner felt is the only thing that does apply. Under my State's laws, you don't actually have to be causing harm, I simply have to believe that you are.

 

[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.

When the glass breaks we are passed the point of needing to see picture I D. Reasonable assumption of INTENT trumps need for more information before defending property and life.

You're saying the victim had grounds to defend himself from a shot coming out from behind the door? You must be, since nobody knows who broke the glass or how.

So I guess that means you can walk up to a door and blast away from the outside, on the suspicion that the guy inside might be pointing a gun at you.

See where this gun fetish mentality leads?

Nah, you probably don't.

No. I wasn't saying ANYTHING like that. It would be just extra ordinary bad luck if someone knocks and then a bird flies into a window and breaks it. "IF" a window or a glass outside door was broken...and I say IF after a knock on the door the person on the inside of the house can assume that the outside person, the Knockee is a person with bad intentions.

 

[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.

yep, howdy, here, I'm going to break a window on your house just so you know I love you.

Please send chocolate or flowers instead, hun.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

The only opinion that matters when it comes to the broken glass is the owner. What you think is irrelevant. If the owner considered what broke the glass a threat, the owner has the right to defend against that threat. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. You weren't there. The owner was.

Stupid and untrue


The only thing that matters is the fucking law. In Mass , and probably in every fucking state that has a Castle Doctrine, you can only use deadly force when a reasonable person would fear for their lives or of great bodily harm, or of someone else who lives in the domicile. . What the person living there feels is irrelevant UNLESS it's reasonable.

 

[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.

dude, your reading skills are terrible. no one is saying anything to which you're implying.

Maybe the voices in Pogo's head are.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

dude, your reading skills are terrible. no one is saying anything to which you're implying.

Maybe the voices in Pogo's head are.

Pogo is only semi literate. I've seen at least 3 different times where s/he had misinterpreted what another poster posted in this thread alone. Once? Okay maybe the person just wasn't clear. Twice? Maybe Pogo is just slow. Three times? Yeah s/he has poor reading comprehension skills.