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

[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.

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.

Actually you were indeed saying that --- I just took your rationale to its logical conclusion. After all with this kind of thing going on, how do I know that door over there isn't the next Jeffrey Lovell? Better blow holes in the door just to be sure, doncha think? Reasonable suspicion and all that.

The key word in your post is "assume". Guess why I made the first half of that word bigger.

 

[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.

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.

Translation --- I challenge people to back up what they say, and they bravely run away.

 

[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.

Translation --- I challenge people to back up what they say, and they bravely run away.

^ Once again misreads what I wrote , proving the point.


Pogo, you don't get to just claim someone said something they never said and then challenge them to prove what you claim they said is true, then claim victory when they refuse to do so.

 

[Pogo]

Bad news and worse news for you gun fetishists:
The bad: the kid now has a name: Dylan Francisco.

The worse --- he's a white kid who "made friends and did well in school"

Cue mass exodus.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

you already know it's factual? so again, you have the dude guilty. i would think there'd be an investigation. You don't seem to need one, you have it all figured out. GUILTY. LOL, Don't Taze me had you laid out like a blanket.

 

[Pogo]

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.


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.

Translation --- I challenge people to back up what they say, and they bravely run away.

^ Once again misreads what I wrote , proving the point.


Pogo, you don't get to just claim someone said something they never said and then challenge them to prove what you claim they said is true, then claim victory when they refuse to do so.

Nope, nobody gets that.

That's why I quote them. Then they run away.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

There are 2 obvious problems with this.

First, teens should not be drinking (nor smoking nor smoking dope nor boinking either).

Second, it is unlawful to shoot through your doors. You need to wait until the perp is inside your home. Castle Doctrine.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Translation --- I challenge people to back up what they say, and they bravely run away.

^ Once again misreads what I wrote , proving the point.


Pogo, you don't get to just claim someone said something they never said and then challenge them to prove what you claim they said is true, then claim victory when they refuse to do so.

Nope, nobody gets that.

That's why I quote them. Then they run away.

LOL yes you quote them then misinterpret what they have said in said quote

You're either dishonest, or semi literate, which is it?

 

[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.

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.

who wrote that? Link post #. there has been nothing but hypothetical discussion here. You, you have the dude guilty. So it's you jumping the gun, no one else in here. notice words like; if and but, are used a lot. so, again, just point the post # you're referencing.

 

[yiostheoy]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

There are 2 obvious problems with this.

First, teens should not be drinking (nor smoking nor smoking dope nor boinking either).

Second, it is unlawful to shoot through your doors. You need to wait until the perp is inside your home. Castle Doctrine.

Again , untrue. If a dude wielding a large caliber rifle was running towards your house and you shot him through the door, A reasonable person would conclude that yes in fact you had cause to fear for your life and thus you would be innocent of any crime.

Why won't you people read the damn law?

 

[jc456]

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.

But you do, right?

 

[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.

Actually you were indeed saying that --- I just took your rationale to its logical conclusion. After all with this kind of thing going on, how do I know that door over there isn't the next Jeffrey Lovell? Better blow holes in the door just to be sure, doncha think? Reasonable suspicion and all that.

The key word in your post is "assume". Guess why I made the first half of that word bigger.

Because you think about ASS all of the time? I have no idea.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

And you don't move,, why?

 

[jc456]

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.

again, if a rock was thrown threw the window that's a threat. Not saying that's what happened, just reminding you you have no idea what was used to break the glass if it was indeed broken and after the conversation. Let's get there first. A rock would be a weapon and indeed complies with the doctrine.

 

[Pogo]

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

NO, I did NOT. I specifically called out posters who jumped to the opposite conclusion -- with no evidence.
Go ahead --- prove me wrong.

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.

Oh we buried this canard last week. Once again, the identity of the driver wasn't yet known, so that couldn't be plugged in. Unlike USMB newspapers don't get to just make it up. It's got nothing to do with "separating" anything.

The truck absolutely DID run down the crowd. There's massive evidence of that. Everybody in the world already knows that if there's a moving truck --- THEN THERE'S A DRIVER IN IT.

 

[2aguy]

Bad news and worse news for you gun fetishists:
The bad: the kid now has a name: Dylan Francisco.

The worse --- he's a white kid who "made friends and did well in school"

Cue mass exodus.

And the Gentle giant was going to medical school...and we had saintly photos of the young Trayvon...then people actually started looking into who the kid was....


So don't get all happy that you have a dead kid you can use to attack all gun owners.....you have no idea what actually happened....

 

[Pogo]

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.

Translation --- I challenge people to back up what they say, and they bravely run away.

^ Once again misreads what I wrote , proving the point.


Pogo, you don't get to just claim someone said something they never said and then challenge them to prove what you claim they said is true, then claim victory when they refuse to do so.

Nope, nobody gets that.

That's why I quote them. Then they run away.

LOL yes you quote them then misinterpret what they have said in said quote

You're either dishonest, or semi literate, which is it?

Funny you can't quote any then.
And by "funny" I mean in the sense of "peculiar".

 

[HUGGY]

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.


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.

Translation --- I challenge people to back up what they say, and they bravely run away.

^ Once again misreads what I wrote , proving the point.


Pogo, you don't get to just claim someone said something they never said and then challenge them to prove what you claim they said is true, then claim victory when they refuse to do so.

If you are playing checkers by yourself, and turning the board around and making a move and turning it back and making a move. you can. It's only crazy if you beat up on yourself for losing.

 

[Pogo]

Come to my house at night and break a window to get in. Please.

This actually happens in my middle class neighborhood a lot -- home burglaries are second only to car burglaries. Always have been and always will be.

Here you need to sleep in a barricaded safe room with your guns at the ready.

My combat carbine leans against the head of my bed at night, and my 45ACP in its holster sleeps under my pillow with me.

It's worth noting to the "break-in" conspiratists that this particular event was in the afternoon, broad daylight. Not a likely time for a "break in".