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 627
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

22192 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2004 at 2:58 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



627 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
cot
2004-10-22 04:10:18 PM  
jat850

Yeah, somehow this whole thread just brought that song to mind.
 
2004-10-22 04:10:23 PM  
Come on people... Whatever happened to "kill him in the yard and drag him in the house", then call the cops. You would think he was smart enough to remember that rule.

/Won't even make it to trial
 
2004-10-22 04:10:31 PM  
Ant

Missed that ... again, thanks for the more detailed article... it gives a slightly better picture of what happened.
 
2004-10-22 04:10:36 PM  
When someone is trying to steal your ATV off your land, you know what their intentions are. They intend to steal your shiat.

When some one tries to steal anything off my land, my intentions are to score a head shot with the first round.

/survivors will be prosecuted
 
2004-10-22 04:11:13 PM  
browser

If you find me breaking into your shed you have my permission to shoot me. Thats pretty much what burglars are saying anyway. They think they are entitled to take for free what I have worked hard to get and think nothing of threatening my family to get it. Fark them.
 
2004-10-22 04:11:32 PM  
It looks like the first person who really picked up on the legal nuances of what happened here is davidv. It seems pretty obvious that the shooter did break NJ law. AspiringPhilosopher quoted the appropriate law. However, the jury refused to indict him. As davidv said, the US legal system is designed so that the last line of defense against bad laws is a jury.

If a jury, a panel of 12 of the defendant's peers, believes that a law is unjust, it is their duty not to convict a defendant based on that belief. That's the way the system is supposed to work. (It's called nullification, by the way.) It's not a very common practice, though. Most people believe that if you sit on a jury and the defendant has clearly broken the law, no matter how much you disagree with that law, you must convict him. No such requirement exists.

Note that I am not commenting on the worthiness of NJ's laws, or whether or not I think the shooter did the right thing. Just trying to clarify the jury's actions.
 
2004-10-22 04:12:07 PM  
knucklebreather

Yeah, all people who commit felonies deserve be killed. Except those running for office as republicans. They are heroes.

Leave it to some whiney, liberal POS with bad morals, ethics, and no concept of personal rights to interject the Kerry agenda in a thread while at the same time proving without a shadow of a doubt that he is a complete asshat.

If that's too much for you to absorb knucklebreather, try this simplification of my comment:

knucklebreather = asshat

----------------

You steal, you take your own life and liberties in your own hands and put them at risk. The gun laws in NJ regarding self defense and protection of property are RIDICULOUS and an abrogation of the word as well as the intent of the constitution. It goes against all common sense. And don't get me started on the ridiculous gun control laws, full of holes and at the same time borderline illegally restrictive (I live there). There is still a ton of gun crime in NJ, but as in every other state and case, 99% of it has to do with illegally owned firearms and not with the gun owners who obey the laws.

Where is the common sense people?

Ever looked at the crime statistics in concealed carry states vs states with gun bans/restrictive laws (such as NJ)? Ever looked at the number of gun crimes by legal gun owners vs felons and those who possess a gun illegally or otherwise acquired their firearm in an illegal manner?

And any argument regarding morality is out the window - it's no different than moralizing the opposite liberal stand on birth control/abortion or anything else.

Until the day comes and the US public starts enforcing anti-violent crime laws in the harshest of possible manner, gives back the rights to the victims in the legal system, puts enough cops on the 'beat' to protect people, etc... removing one's right to defend life and property is the only legitimate answer.
 
cot
2004-10-22 04:13:56 PM  
"When some one tries to steal anything off my land, my intentions are to score a head shot with the first round."

That's mighty Christian of you!

I'm forgetting my Sunday School - didn't jesus mow down the money changers with a gatling gun?
 
2004-10-22 04:14:57 PM  
MK-Ultra71, what if I look out my window and think you're breaking into my shed? What if I look out my window and think you might be thinking about breaking into my shed. What if that person rooting around in my backyard is really just retrieving a ball? I'm not some "criminals are people too," flower hugging, tree loving hippie. Criminal scum are criminal scum and deserve whatever the law says can be done to them. But if you start making up the rules as you go, because it's more convenient..... And if the police are held to higher standards for lethal force than the populace....
 
2004-10-22 04:16:08 PM  
My god, all you bleeding hearts should really swallow a freakin tampon already. Soon enough, all that blood will start spilling out your noses and on to your keyboards.
Won't someone think of the keyboards?
 
Bf+
2004-10-22 04:16:16 PM  
Your stupid TV is not worth the life of another.
...but I guess shooting people is easier than understanding them.


Woah, I just RTFA, and noted the phrase "would-be thief."
Translation: NOT A THIEF.

The bush doctrine of pre-emtion is alive and well.
Do I get to kill all possible "would-be" criminals?
(e.g. you)
 
2004-10-22 04:16:22 PM  
jat850

It's a blog. We all remain safely anonymous and therefore sound more radical than we really are.

Have a great weekend!



/I love fark
 
2004-10-22 04:20:32 PM  
knucklebreather: Yeah, all people who commit felonies deserve be killed. Except those running for office as republicans. They are heroes.

Well, I'm not the type of conservative that you're probably thinking of, but the home/property owner has my sympathies in this case (as do all legitimate owners of property). If it were me, I can say that I probably wouldn't have killed the intruder. Yet he would, more than likely, be eating through a tube for quite some time.

I'm okay with the idea that deadly force is to be used only when one's life is threatened, but severe assbeatings are fair game when you catch a run-of-the-mill thief red-handed...And I do think that the possibility of getting shot (at) is an occupational hazard that all thieves should discount when considering a career in crime.
 
2004-10-22 04:20:42 PM  
I dont think anyone here is saying that if they saw someone trespassing on their yard, or in their shed, or looking at their car, that they would grab the gun and go kill the "would-be" criminal.

Every situation is different. Is this person actually planning a crime. Are there others there that you cannot see. Is this person armed. Is it dark. Might this person be willing to harm you.

I doubt anyone would simply start shooting without evaluating the above questions.
 
2004-10-22 04:21:20 PM  
This is the perfect FARK article.
 
2004-10-22 04:21:23 PM  
browser
I'm suggesting that the police are understaffed and over worked and they cannot be relied on to protect your home. And as far as protecting my family I think I am a better judge of whats acceptable than anyone else.

The "for instances" are getting inane. I don't think anyone would shoot someone because it looked like they were breaking into their shed. But even attempt to enter my home for any reason be prepared to be carried out. I don't see a problem with that.

The case we are discussing/arguing had different circumstances but the thief was warned and still advanced on the home owner. Thats a threat to him and his family.
 
2004-10-22 04:21:56 PM  
Sloth_DC

It can be argued that all human lives are of infinite value. Your statement holds true only because not all infinities are valued equally. However, all infinities are valued over all finite quantites.
 
2004-10-22 04:23:02 PM  
NightSteel

I agree that this may be an act of nullification. However, it could also be simply motivated out of empathy for someone who's the victim of one burglary already and a second attempted larceny.

I think the prosecutor should take it to a second jury, re-present the evidence, and if he still doesn't get an indictment, that should be the end of it. If two juries decide not to indict, then I would agree that it's a clear case of jury nullification.
 
cot
2004-10-22 04:23:13 PM  
"I don't think anyone would shoot someone because it looked like they were breaking into their shed."
...
"When some one tries to steal anything off my land, my intentions are to score a head shot with the first round."
...
 
2004-10-22 04:23:25 PM  
While it is not legal to use deadly force to protect personal property, it is legal to do so to protect one's home...

Asplain?

"Home" is an emotional descriptor for the place I live. It is an emotional attachment describing a chunk of land that I hold sentimental value to.

How, exactly, does one legally have the ability to defend one's "home" without someone claiming one was simply defending property? Is my house going to be upset it was broken into?

No.

Weep all you want. These dirtbags violated a man's home. They got what they deserved. End of story.
 
2004-10-22 04:24:42 PM  
Wizzywig

NJ does require handgun registration. Handguns and longguns are treated differently. It's 18 for one and 21 for the other, and your local PD does have the serial on record.
 
cot
2004-10-22 04:24:42 PM  
"It can be argued that all human lives are of infinite value. Your statement holds true only because not all infinities are valued equally"

I don't know if I agree with that mapping.
 
2004-10-22 04:24:45 PM  
Your stupid TV is not worth the life of another.
...but I guess shooting people is easier than understanding them.


What exactly should I understand? That they are a scumbag criminal on my property taking things I worked hard for and paid for out of my own toil and effort? That they could present an even greater threat to my family and loved ones? That they, perhaps, are a dangerous criminal element who has done much worse or will do much worse to me or my friends/family?

Or maybe I should adopt the whiney liberal line of 'oh my, you poor and downtrodden person... take all that you want, even though I don't have much, for you obviously need it more than I do"... never mind that this person could do for themselves in this land of opportunity but obviously choose to become a human leech. Any bets on this now dead (thankfully) scumbag being a drug addict who would sell the item in question for more nose candy?


Woah, I just RTFA, and noted the phrase "would-be thief."
Translation: NOT A THIEF.

The bush doctrine of pre-emtion is alive and well.
Do I get to kill all possible "would-be" criminals?
(e.g. you)


Ahh!!! Can you feel it? More liberal, bs spin.

A) He wasn't convicted... hence 'alleged'. That is a legal term, nothing more. He had an accomplice (who has been indicted for his participation in the attempted crime if you RTFA). He was on someone's property, caught red handed with something he was attempting to remove from the property (theft).

B)Pre-Emptive action... learn to spell it if you are going to spin it. Not that this good act of citizenry deserves you lumping it in with your badly thought out political agenda. Using your line of thinking, we should be pre-emptively putting to death all liberals and bleeding hearts given how much damage they have done to this country and it's people since the end of WWII.
 
2004-10-22 04:24:46 PM  
GNNR

Leave it to some whiney, liberal POS with bad morals, ethics, and no concept of personal rights to interject the Kerry agenda in a thread

I guess w's take on this would be to go shoot people who might have the ability to plan to take your shiat

That's mighty Christian of you!

I'm forgetting my Sunday School - didn't jesus mow down the money changers with a gatling gun?


fark jesus, if you steal something and die without being sorry for it he wont shoot you he'll burn you for eternity, what a guy
 
2004-10-22 04:25:00 PM  
I know I am jumping in slightly late-ish, and this has probably been said before, but:

I value my property MUCH more than the life of a thief. There is NEVER an excuse to take somebody else's property. I don't care if you are within minutes of starving to death, you do not have the right to take what does not belong to you by force.
 
2004-10-22 04:25:11 PM  
mcflizzy

freeboater, "only criminals would have guns" is a way of pointing out the obvious to the oblivious. If only criminals would have guns, law abiding citizens would be unable to defend themselves in instances of home invasion, carjacking, muggings, rape, etc. etc. etc.

You would need to break the law in order to defend yourself. That is illogical.


mcflizzy Perhaps you misunderstand the role of law, allow me to explain. Law does not serve the purpose to create ways for you to defend yourself. Could I shoot you if you were slandering me and harming my livelihood? Or perhaps I could shoot you if I were diabetic and you stole my insulin. I would after all, be defending myself, in a manner.

Law serves the purpose to punish criminals who commit a crime against an individual or group in society. It is retribution, nothing else. Therefore, breaking the law to protect yourself is not illogical, because the law is not created to allow you to protect yourself, but rather remedy things done against you.

Ant perhaps a dictionary would help.

Tautologous- Repeating the same thing in different words; tautological.

Now for your argument

Let me explain:

Criminals obviously don't obey the law. Why should they care if guns are illegal? How is outlawing guns for everybody supposed to take guns out of the hands of criminals who don't give a shiat about the law in the first place?

The only people who are affected by anti-gun legislation are the people who actually follow the law.

How is that a tautological argument?


It is not tautologous, right, also not what I said.

To say: "If guns were illegal, only criminals would have them." is the same as saying: "If owning a gun was criminal, only people who are criminals would own them." This is the same as saying: "If something is criminal, only criminals will do it" or "Only criminals commit crimes."

Now that seems Tatologous doesn't it?
 
2004-10-22 04:26:52 PM  
LineNoise

Wizzywig

NJ does require handgun registration. Handguns and longguns are treated differently. It's 18 for one and 21 for the other, and your local PD does have the serial on record.


This is only partially correct. If you move in from out of state and legally possessed a hand gun or long gun at your previous residence you don't have to register it. YOu can't take it with you to a range, can't buy ammo, can't do squat with it, but you don't have to register it. This is what I was talking about in a previous post about the badly written, reactionary liberal gun laws.
 
2004-10-22 04:27:34 PM  
myrus316-

My god, all you bleeding hearts should really swallow a freakin tampon already. Soon enough, all that blood will start spilling out your noses and on to your keyboards.
Won't someone think of the keyboards?


Won't someone think of the pointless trolling?

/make a relevant point, or STFU.
 
2004-10-22 04:27:54 PM  
Dogs are for protecting your yard, guns are for protecting your house and family.

Wonder what would have happened if buddy's German Sheppard had of mauled the perp?
 
2004-10-22 04:28:15 PM  
Hmm, do all Americans think people should be shot for stealing stuff? How about if we just chop off their hands?
 
2004-10-22 04:30:00 PM  
Somewildeyed8foottallmaniac
It can be argued that all human lives are of infinite value. Your statement holds true only because not all infinities are valued equally. However, all infinities are valued over all finite quantites.

My reply to that is, My cat's breath smells like cat food.
 
2004-10-22 04:30:24 PM  
Steve French

You sound Canadian... Does the Canadian law of homeowner liability sound better to you? I would rather shoot a criminal than be sued because he broke into my house and tripped over a rug.
 
2004-10-22 04:30:29 PM  
unexplained bacon

GNNR

I guess w's take on this would be to go shoot people who might have the ability to plan to take your shiat


I didn't interject any political opinion regarding the election, that asshat did. What's your point...? In a larger, political sense, this is and has been a sound international policy... in a civil sense it's retarded. But since the guy was caught stealing, VS planning to steal something, your point is completely invalid.
 
2004-10-22 04:30:36 PM  
Having formerly stolen things like an ATV, I gotta say I would never threaten the person I was stealing it from. I also wouldn't go in anyones house, ever. Why? Cuz I didn't want to get farking shot. I never intended physical harm to anyone on my escapades, but I wouldn't have been surprised to be shot at if it ever happened, inside or outside. Guns are a deterrent, and if someone is in your house, put more holes in em' then swiss cheeze. A good thief knows this may happen, he will avoid your place and go to the whiny hippies down the street and steal their cats. :)
 
2004-10-22 04:30:41 PM  


Not just stuff, more specifically MY stuff. I don't care if anyone steals your stuff.
 
2004-10-22 04:31:12 PM  
Ant,

You wouldn't go outside to investigate noises? That seems to be all this guy did. He just happened to have a gun with him when one of the thieves tried to make a move on him.

I'll look outside first. If I see someone trying to break in my car/steal some shiat out of my toolshed (they're whackin in my toolshed again!!!), I'll call the police.

If I don't see anything, I'll go outside and investigate. I won't, however, take my shotgun with me. The chances of being shot while investigating a noise outside of your house (sans weapon)...not so good. The chances of taking a gun out there and having the situation escalate to a deadly level....much more likely.

My weapon is for home defense only. It's not for car defense/ATV defense/lawn gnome defense.

Killing someone is the last thing I ever want to do. I don't care if it's a thief, murderer, or a telemarketer (well, maybe one of them). I never want to have to live with the knowledge that I took someone's life.

In fact, outside of work, all of my activities are directed towards saving lives and keeping people well.

It's only when someone breaks into my home, and I have no idea as to their intentions, that I'll take it to the level of shooting them.
 
2004-10-22 04:31:52 PM  
Once you fail to protect your own life, that of your familes or fail to protect your property its too late. There is no going back once someone has broken into your house, your car or your property with the intent on stealing and or violence against you.

The police can't help you, the laws can't help you. Only you and whatever implements are at hand can keep you and yours safe.

Until you've been in that situation it can be hard to understand. I have been and that's how I form my opinion. At the end of the day that is truly a situation where it's you or them.

Trying to hide behind the veil of "but we're supposed to live in a civilized society and there are laws" only applies when BOTH sides are playing by the same rules. Theives have already made the choice not to live by those rules.

As for the thoughts of "but you have to understand why they are there." I understand why they are there. You know what? That's not justification enough for me. I doesn't matter what preceived hardships they are going through that forces them to steal - all that goes out the window once my family or property is threatened.


Horse
 
2004-10-22 04:32:11 PM  
AspiringPhilosopher, he can't "re-present" the case. That's double jeopardy (as I said in my previous post).

It doesn't matter if the jury found it an emotionally appealing case. Unless there was court misconduct, the fellow is innocent and that law is basically unenforceable. Judgements of conscience are legally just.
 
2004-10-22 04:33:08 PM  
cot-

"It can be argued that all human lives are of infinite value. Your statement holds true only because not all infinities are valued equally"

I don't know if I agree with that mapping.


Not that I really had a point or anything =D, but I'm curious what part you disagree with...

It's valid logically and mathematically.
 
2004-10-22 04:33:24 PM  
Hmm, do all Americans think people should be shot for stealing stuff? How about if we just chop off their hands?

Not just stuff, more specifically, MY stuff. I don't care if any one steals your stuff.
 
2004-10-22 04:33:26 PM  


better late than never
 
2004-10-22 04:34:12 PM  
Hmm, do all Americans think people should be shot for stealing stuff? How about if we just chop off their hands?
================================================
Not stealing stuff. Breaking into a persons home. Stealing a cnady bar form a corner store and breaking into my HOME are two very different things. I know the dangers I may or may not face once I step outside in the morning but until I leave I should feel completely safe. Letting perps break in to steal my stuff and terrorize my family (or worse) because they feel they deserve it doesn't even enter into it.

My job as a husband and father is to protect my family. I can't always be with them 24 hours a day but I damn will protect them in our home. Legal or not. I'll deal with that later.
 
2004-10-22 04:35:42 PM  
re: 'homeowner liability sound better to you?'

No, it's an idiotic law. I don't care what 'the law' has to say about me protecting my life - I will be the sole judge of what I think is necessary under the circumstances.

But that doesn't answer my question, it is just misdirected non sequitur.
 
2004-10-22 04:36:10 PM  
Steve French


Hmm, do all Americans think people should be shot for stealing stuff? How about if we just chop off their hands?

to disfigure another human over some stuff would be wrong, just send them back to the universe for reincarnation. if you think about it you'd be doing them a favor.
i'm sure they'd be much happier being reborn, getting a fresh shot at becoming something other than a parasite. thieves are hard to understand, but if I put myself in a thieves postion I think I'd like someone to help me back to the start so I could try again. or send me to burn in hell (for all you silly christians out there)
 
2004-10-22 04:36:35 PM  
mcflizzy

This was only at the indictment stage. This wasn't a trial. And that's why the prosecutor can re-present his case, so to speak, to a different grand jury and ask for either the same or different indictments.

This isn't a case of double jeopardy:
[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989)
 
2004-10-22 04:38:42 PM  
TheBurner
Dogs are for protecting your yard

You know what would happen if I set my 65 pound Lab/shepard mix after a guy breaking into my shed? He would run up to them, stopping to pick a frizbee up along the way and maybe pee. He would then probably follow them home if he thought it meant a car ride.
 
cot
2004-10-22 04:39:27 PM  
I just don't know that I'd ascribe infinite value to human life over the sum total of everything else that exists (which is what you're saying - the sum of a finite number of finite numbers is finite. Or something.)

Weigh one human life vs. say all technology ( excluding of course that which saves lives), so compare the downgrade in standard of living for all of mankind to the loss of that one life.

Or compare one human life to all forms of art ever created. Which would you rather lose?

We have emotional reasons for wanting to ascribe infinite value to a human life but it's not really rational.
 
2004-10-22 04:39:45 PM  
It can be argued that all human lives are of infinite value.

Of course it can. I'll be taking the "anti" position on this one.

Your statement holds true only because not all infinities are valued equally. However, all infinities are valued over all finite quantites.

Ah, but we haven't yet had the argument over whether all human lives are of infinite value, so you are not allowed to use that conclusion as a given in your next proof.
 
2004-10-22 04:40:09 PM  
oihorse

WELL SAID!

-------

Laws are for retribution and remedy. They are only a deterrence, NOT a direct protection. You are the first line of protection... only some states and cities (and countries) have deemed it that you don't have the right to protecting yourself, your loved ones, nor your property.

Some may think that 'property' isn't worth dying over or taking a life over. Others do. I do. I wouldn't want to take a life if I had any other choice, but I am not a rich man and some scumbag who didn't put in the blood, sweat, and tears of an education and hard work to acquire something they desire aren't going to get it for free off of my toil and labor. Period.

The point raised about not wandering around outside your home with a gun for no reason is a good one... I doubt I personally would do it. I would lock the doors, keep my pistol handy, and call the police. I don't begrudge someone who would step out on their patio with a shotgun and blast some scumbag stealing their car or things...

Having been in a robbery situation both at work and domestically as a child and as an adult, you really don't know how you would react until it happens. You may feel threatened when someone is in your basement siftin through your things looking for something of value in desperation to feed their crack habit... I did and I know I would have shot the person had he come up the interior stairway into the rest of my home. Thankfully the cops showed up... but either way you don't know if the person is armed, will come back and take more, maybe come into your home and threaten you or your loved ones for more... it's a dangerous scenariou and ultimately that person A) doesn't belong there, B) is threat by being there, though the degree of threat will vary by person as they percieve it and by situation, C) is a scumbag criminal who has tossed out their rights in their threat on your property and life.
 
2004-10-22 04:40:10 PM  
GNNR

i wasn't trying to make a point so much as i was taking a jab at you for taking a jab at our future prez ;)

anyway we generally agree on the main subject so...truce
 
Displayed 50 of 627 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report