Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News Tribune)   NJ grand jury refuses to indict man who shot burglars on his property   (thnt.com ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

22205 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2004 at 2:58 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



626 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Bf+
2004-10-22 05:35:09 PM  
dude, I don't even KNOW anymore...
 
2004-10-22 05:35:50 PM  
Celery_Stalker,

What you are talking about is tantamount to extortion. Yes, let's be held hostage by criminals and reward them for their actions becuase it's harder to stand up for oneself rather than take action. Sooner or later they'll take something of yours that can't be replaced by insurance - whether its a family heirloom, a sense of security, or worse.

I, for one, refuse to let someone walk in and take things that I worked damn hard for. There is no excuse for it. None.

Horse
 
2004-10-22 05:36:45 PM  
Bf+

-I never said that it did. Each individual is responsible for their own actions. The homeowner is responsible for taking the action of shooting the criminal, but in this case responsibility doesn't equate to criminal trouble. If the Grand Jury said he was justified in his actions, the homeowner legally did nothing wrong.
 
2004-10-22 05:36:49 PM  
Damn edit. rather than take action should = rather than NOT take action.

Horse
 
2004-10-22 05:39:13 PM  
Now, if we could get everyone here to agree that this following situation is wrong, then I'd consider it a victory for reason: You're awakened by a noise in the night. Someone is holding your VCR in his hands. You raise your gun and shoot him.

Yes, that situation is plainly wrong - it is absolutely not right that some asshat should be in my house, holding my VCR, and potentially getting ready to brain me with it.
 
Bf+
2004-10-22 05:41:15 PM  
"-I never said that it did."
I agree-- just clarifying.

"Each individual is responsible for their own actions. The homeowner is responsible for taking the action of shooting the criminal,"
Still agree...

"but in this case responsibility doesn't equate to criminal trouble."
Maybe-- He did kill a guy for being near his shed.

"If the Grand Jury said he was justified in his actions, the homeowner legally did nothing wrong."
Not nessesarily.
 
2004-10-22 05:41:22 PM  
Sloth_DC: "This is the first I've heart one of the nuts here actually saying they'd tell the guy to stop first or that he's advancing on you...

"Then you should read the farking thread, eh?"
"

Not to talk about real Scotsman, but the few people who did say they'd do that weren't the nutty ones. Their posts have usually been of the form: "Actually, you should do it this way. And you people are nuts."
 
2004-10-22 05:43:14 PM  
Having served on a grand jury, I'm thinking there is more to this than I'm reading. They can't talk about all the details. I guessing there is not much evidence that the home owner just snuck up on the perp in the dark and shot him in cold blood. However the grand jurys job is not to decide if the guy is guilty just to determine if there is enough evidence presented by the state to go to trial. The home owner clearly broke the law in NJ at least on some of the offences. That is why you have insurance people. Only shoot if it your life on the line; offer not valid in texas.
 
2004-10-22 05:44:12 PM  
Damn, gun-grabbers and their wimpering, criminal-loving doubletalk annoy the shiat out of me.

They can't even keep their own anti-gun arguments straight. If you tell them you own a gun for self-defense, they'll start crying about how "statistically" you'll never get a chance to use it- how the attacker is going to be expecting you to attack and how they'll be quicker on the triger, and how they'll just shoot you where you stand as you hesitate on the trigger, then use your gun to kill your entire family... blah blah blah.

Then you have a situation where, by a stroke of luck, the homeowner actually has the advantage, and uses it. They'll start crying again, about how it's "unfair" or "racist" to assume that anything bad was ever going to happen in the first place, and how the homeowner should take the time to let the criminal know he's there before taking action. Maybe fire a warning shot in the air like some Wild West hero. Give him a sporting chance! Turn 'em around first, and tell 'em to "Draw!"

Of course, you have to draw. Having your weapon already out at this point just gives you another unfair adgantage, and will just start them crying again, insisting that now YOU are the one who's the threat, and any respectable criminal when seeing a homeowner with a gun should have the right to shoot you, because now THEIR life is in danger...

No no no... you should puff yourself all mean and scarry like and in your best voice, declare "Stop, I'm making a citizens arrest!" Of course, the other guy could just give you the finger and walk away, cause y'know... attempting to restrain the criminal in ANY way is assault.

And we're the ones that watch too many movies...?

You want to protect criminals? You really should put signs on your homes identifying yourselves as the sobing, anti-gun folk you are. It'll keep them out of our yards. Hey, you're all heavily insured, so I'm sure you wouldn't mind the occasional break-in, if it helps the criminal out, right? Hell, just leave the door open and invite 'em in. It's better for all of us that way, and you can maintain your moral superiority.
 
2004-10-22 05:46:19 PM  
peldor,

While I agree with the sentiment found in the picture you posted, why can't the creators of these pictures get some normal looking people to hold the weapons?

Every person I've seen in those style of pictures looks like someone you'll see standing outside a flea market, smoking a clove, and smelling vaguely of cheese.
 
2004-10-22 05:48:13 PM  
I don't get it. Is somebody just supposed to watch while the thing is stolen? Am I in the wrong if I go defend my stuff? Do I call his/her mother and give her a good stern talking to? Do I have the police track him down for however long that takes?

Here's a story. I had a guy lying on the back of my porch, and I thought he was dead. You know what the cops said? "We'll send somebody if anybody's free." There's no context or circumstance here. There was a street dance outside the front of my place with 6 cops posting.

My brother was involved in a hit-and-run. He called the cops. They said "We can't do anything about it now because he's gone."

My mother was terrorized by her ex-boyfriend every day. He barged his way into her house and threatened her every day but never really touched her. She called the cops and they said "We can't do anything about it until he hurts somebody." Yes, basically she would have to have been dead already before they would remove him from her house.

How much faith can you put in a police force like that? Somebody please answer me.
 
2004-10-22 05:48:26 PM  
If I spotted someone trying to steal from me, I would attempt to stop them. If they refused to stop, I would fight them into submission. If they were to die in the fight, it would not be because of my decision to protect my property, it would be because of their decision to try and steal it.

I would not be a willing victim. Criminals love willing victims. Criminals avoid unwilling victims whenever they can. It is wise to advertise one's unwillingness to be victimized.
 
2004-10-22 05:50:54 PM  
draven301: "I don't get it. Is somebody just supposed to watch while the thing is stolen? Am I in the wrong if I go defend my stuff? Do I call his/her mother and give her a good stern talking to?"

Oh, I don't know... you could stop him. With a gun.

But NOT do this: He's stealing! BANG!!
 
2004-10-22 05:51:30 PM  
Deselby,

I've been in the situation where I have detained a criminal in such a fashion (stop, freeze, wait for police).

The results were:
A) 3 years of being dragged through court, taking days off from work and college to attend court as the witness (since this was a State vs. case).
B) 3 years of postponements while the crack head (and he was) could get counciling (to no avail).
C) 3 years of aggravation, loss of sense of security and ultimately having said junkie get off for time served and I didn't even get to say one word about it. So ultimately I lose out and this guy walks and gets to continue his course of actions (and am told by multiple law enforcement officers by the end of that three years to, next time, take the law into my own hands).

Ultimately the point is, yes no one wants to go around shooting up everyone that looks at them cross-eyed, steps onto their property, etc. No one WANTS to have to take someone else's life - but the system we live in to day does not work. Police are NOT a protection, laws are NOT a protection, they are the clean-up squad. Only you as an individual can protect yourself, your family and your property.

People are cheering for this man because he stood up for what was his and walked away intact - something that doesn't seem to happen enough. Too often in this country it appears that criminals control the streets and that efforts to hold on to what is yours is looked upon with disdain by the cowards of society.

I want to be sure that when my family is threatened I can react with as much force as I deem necessary to protect it without suffering undue repercussions - its all anyone want in the end. People see this is a victory in that direction.

Horse
 
2004-10-22 05:52:30 PM  
The police are only here to protect society, not to protect you individually. As peldor pointed out, the police can take anywhere from minutes to hours to arrive, by then it could be to late. Things happen fast, especially at night things can seem differently then they are.

1. Shoot to kill, never to wound. You are much safer legally with a dead man in your yard then a living man getting off your property.

You don't think shooting intruders works as a deterent. Look at the video from the last LA riots. the shops in that area that were spared all had little korean guys sitting on the roof picking people off as they tried to steal from their shop. Come on my property with intent to harm my family or my property that I spent year, as well as blood sweat an tears to build and amass and you better be ready to meet your maker.

Think of your home/property as a small nation. If America is invaded do we not protect her? Why is it any different then your home/yard?

So to all you liberal "guns are bad" people out there, I hope your house is next on the list to be robbed. We shall see how you like it.
 
2004-10-22 05:53:49 PM  
What's next, shooting people for shoplifting?
 
2004-10-22 05:55:44 PM  
This is great. Made my day.

BeerNut, sure. That's already legal in Texas. If someone's running down the street with your stereo, you have the right to shoot that someone in order to get your property back. That's the way it should be.

Genepool cleansed $$.
 
2004-10-22 05:58:11 PM  
oihorse: "I've been in the situation where I have detained a criminal in such a fashion (stop, freeze, wait for police). The results were: [nasty stuff]"

Than we need to stop the system punishing people for reducing the death-count, not allow quick kills.
 
2004-10-22 05:58:42 PM  
Seems the prosecutors are really going after the shooter so IMHO something is a tad off.
Someone stealing your ATV is not justifiable homicide.

On the other hand, I don't have much sympathy for people who try to steal other peoples' stuff.
For me what it all boils down to is that the shooter could probably have done himself a favor if he had picked up a phone instead of picking up a gun.
 
2004-10-22 06:00:31 PM  
re: What's next, shooting people for shoplifting?

funny you ask...

Shoreline Albertsons Employee Shot Trying To Confront Shoplifter
 
2004-10-22 06:00:54 PM  
so everyone who thinks this is great news thinks that the shooter's car (his car!) is worth more than the burglar's life?

Yup. Criminals lives mean nothing to me. Shoot them all
 
2004-10-22 06:01:19 PM  
Prosecutors email addy.

sdalt­o­n­[nospam-﹫-backwards]oc*glo­uce­s­ter*nj*us
 
2004-10-22 06:01:44 PM  
kasarul, why isn't it justifiable?
 
2004-10-22 06:02:02 PM  
What's next, shooting people for shoplifting?

Why not? It would solve the problem...
 
2004-10-22 06:03:01 PM  
anomaly2.0,

Yeah - shooting people for shoplifting will definitely put a stop to shoplifting.
 
2004-10-22 06:04:25 PM  
anomaly2.0,

Yeah - shooting people for shoplifting will definitely put a stop to shoplifting.


Yeah, it's a simple concept. Don't want to get shot? Don't steal other peoples shiat...
 
2004-10-22 06:05:24 PM  
Oh, I almost forgot.

oihorse: I've been in the situation where I have detained a criminal in such a fashion (stop, freeze, wait for police).

Good work. You actually do deserve a medal.

//pins one on
 
2004-10-22 06:05:57 PM  
Fark defends murder since a gun was involved again! Woohoo!
 
2004-10-22 06:06:14 PM  
anomaly2.0,

Oh, absolutely. Murder has stopped entirely in Texas, thanks to the advent of the death penalty.
 
2004-10-22 06:08:14 PM  
Somebody needs to make sure this dick-wad of a prosecutor doesn't get his job back:

After the shooting, prosecutor Sean F. Dalton defended the charges, saying that New Jersey state law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property. That's still his argument.

...It's this kind of thinking that's going to ruin this nation, and our founding fathers are turning in their graves. Property rights are tantamount to a free society -- you degrade property rights via this kind of idiocy or abuse of eminent domain and you effectively wear down Democracy.

One more win for gun rights.
 
2004-10-22 06:08:30 PM  
Hopefully I'll never live next to one of these wack-jobs, sitting around, preying for someone to trespass or try and steal something so they can kill them.
 
2004-10-22 06:11:33 PM  
J.Garcia'sRightMiddleFinger, don't steal anyone's property and you'll be just fine.
 
2004-10-22 06:11:41 PM  
I like that jury-- I didn't expect that from Communist NJ!
 
2004-10-22 06:11:46 PM  
anomaly2.0,

Oh, absolutely. Murder has stopped entirely in Texas, thanks to the advent of the death penalty.


I didn't say it would stop the activity entirely, but it would prevent the perp form re-offending...
 
2004-10-22 06:13:47 PM  
anomaly2.0,

And how will eliminating one "perp" stop another from trying the same thing the next day? And the day after that?
 
2004-10-22 06:14:54 PM  
re: 'Hopefully I'll never live next to one of these wack-jobs'

Yah. These are the same type of dorks who own killer pitbulls to 'protect' their precious trailer and 3 ft of surrounding property from passersby. They're real rough and tough, alright. On video games, they rule.
 
2004-10-22 06:16:44 PM  
Epistax:

You make a very good argument. I liked the part where you totally and completely misused the term murder.

Murder implies premeditation. If somebody is breaking into your shed to steal things from you that YOU OWN, it's then acceptable to stop them. This country was not built by pandering bedwetters who would be willing to place the safety of a criminal before that of the people he was attempting to rob.

You're on the wrong side of the issue.
 
2004-10-22 06:16:59 PM  
anomaly2.0: I didn't say it would stop the activity entirely, but it would prevent the perp form re-offending...

Despite that truism, I haven't seen evidence that the death penalty reduces crime levels at all; making the whole thing kind of pointless.

I haven't got a strong position to defend on this one. Feel free to sway me with those numbers.

//adding to the death penalty threadjack
 
2004-10-22 06:17:00 PM  
The problem with shooting people over stolen property is that it can lead to the use deadly force in marginal situations ("he was on my property, he must be a thief"). I am all in favor of defending oneself, but killing to defend property (except where there is also a threat of bodily harm) just doesn't make sense to me. Failures of the court system is a weak excuse, though I have had similar experiences. A human life is worth too much.
 
2004-10-22 06:17:14 PM  
jat850, in a general sense, it won't. On an individual sense, they'll know not to fark with the guy with the gun.
 
2004-10-22 06:17:52 PM  
AspiringPhilosopher
...Where does this stop?

Let's say instead of an ATV, the thief was going after a pair of sneakers the "hero" left out in the yard. He sees the thief and shoots him dead. Is he then still a hero for valiantly protecting his shoes? Where do we draw the line?

It's just a freakin ATV for chrissakes. And this man decided that his ATV is worth more than a man's life. And you folks agree.

That's just sick.
...


Fantastic_Dan
so everyone who thinks this is great news thinks that the shooter's car (his car!) is worth more than the burglar's life?

Both of you fellas are a good example of the subtlety of liberal thought. You place the blame on the property owner that HE decided his stuff was worth more than the criminal's life. Untrue.

It was the freakin' CRIMINAL who decided that the man's ATV was a worthy enough prize to risk his life to steal.

Draw the moral distinction where it belongs. The guy who decided to do the stealing was the one who set the ball in motion that led to his demise. He made that conscious decision...and considering that he had no idea that the property owner was armed and that he might bear arms to halt the commission of his crime...

...well then some might say this is a great example of Natural Selection at work.
 
2004-10-22 06:17:52 PM  
skoorbevad,

Murder implies premeditation.

Not in all cases.
 
2004-10-22 06:18:52 PM  
"kasarul, why isn't it justifiable?"

Because NJ law says so.
Hence the reason the prosecutors are going after the shooter...
 
2004-10-22 06:18:56 PM  
Animatronik, how do you judge the value of a human life?

(I keep asking on this thread, and I keep getting silence in return)
 
2004-10-22 06:19:01 PM  
Steve French
snicker
 
2004-10-22 06:19:10 PM  
mcflizzy

Unless, determined enough, the criminal starts bringing his/her OWN gun, which elevates the situation.

Or brings a friend, or two, or three.
 
2004-10-22 06:20:53 PM  
jat850:

I'll bet if you made a living from stealing from innocent people, you'd be a lot less hesitant to do so if you knew that the innocent individuals you were stealing from were also armed.

A willfully and legally armed society is a safer one. This has been proven many times over from cities and counties which had local ordinances requiring a homeowner to have a firearm in the house. Violent crime rates plummetted.

Criminals are going to get their hands on firearms no matter what sort of legislation you attempt to pass banning them. You're not attacking the problem at all; you're simply having a wet-dream where everybody follows the rules.

The world doesn't spin like that.
 
2004-10-22 06:22:21 PM  
skoorbevad,

This is not a gun rights issue here, as I see it.

I fully support gun ownership.

If I was making a living stealing from innocent people, and I knew they were armed, I would simply arm myself better, or bring help.

I never, EVER, once believed this incident to be a gun rights issue.
 
2004-10-22 06:23:29 PM  
Mcflizzy,
I can't tell you the exact value, but I can rank order:

human life >
house
car
space shuttle
etc...
 
2004-10-22 06:27:17 PM  
Despite that truism, I haven't seen evidence that the death penalty reduces crime levels at all; making the whole thing kind of pointless.

Maybe not, but it does prevent each executed criminal from doing it again, which saves innocent people lives...
 
Displayed 50 of 626 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report