Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Intoxicated student shot trying to enter wrong home

81 posts in this topic

Posted

No disrespect....but almost every post of yours in the tinderbox has almost made me laugh due to their lack of objectiveness, ignorance, or just plain being dumb.

haha yea, no disrespect...if you think what im saying is ignorant, than you seriously need to get your head checked. i'd like to know specifically what you think is "dumb" that ive said. interesting enough, ive never seen you refute anything ive said.

So you calling someone who has different political views then you a moron (especially on a post where he seemed to be sarcastic) was funny to me.

this topic has nothiong to do with political views. i called him a moron because whenever a point is made by any of the conservatives on here, he replies with a smartass remark. rarely does "rodeo" attempt to explain his "logic."

Anyway, I'm sure there could have plenty of other solutions then to shoot the kid. Hell, I know of two kids who have done something like this while drunk and each one was resolved peacefully or just by calling the cops. No one was shot dead. This guy more then likely overreacted and felt like the gun gave him power. I will however withhold judgment becuase I do not know all the circumstances.

yea, other things could have been done. but the fact of the matter is those kids only have themselves to blame. since when are individuals no longer held responsible for their actions?

if you are under the influence of a drug, and you try to enter someone else's house late at night, what else do you expect to happen? thats a lose lose situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just curious...how did you feel about Bernhard Goetz?

He was clearly being mugged on a subway where there was no where to run and no one to help (I assume, because it happened late at night, at least thats what I thought). He made a decision to defend himself, like many of us would.

However, there is a difference in shooting a college kid and shooting 4 men trying to clearly mug/harm you. I also think the court decision was fair. He was actually only convicted one one gun violation, considering he shot four men and paralyzed one. Did those men deserve it? Sure, but if some type of guideline is not set then anyone could shoot dead, at any time and it could be classified as self defense.

I am not anti-gun, one of my good friends owns a gun store and I enjoy learning and holding/ getting experience with different guns. I'm sure this guy felt threatened by someone trying to break into his house, but his wife was already calling 911, this guy could have just delayed the kid instead of shooting him dead.

Really it comes down to the circumstances, but for people in those situations who don't have time to think I understand they make quick decisions. I just hope they are the right ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is this like thinking all liberals are pot-smoking, communist homosexuals?

Lumping everyone in a group together because of the actions of one random person?

Do you say this kind of sh*t because it's what you really think or just to get a reaction? I'm just curious.

its pretty obvious he just wants a reaction. the dude never has anything actually worthwhile to say. its smart-ass remark, after amart-ass remark with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

haha yea, no disrespect...if you think what im saying is ignorant, than you seriously need to get your head checked. i'd like to know specifically what you think is "dumb" that ive said. interesting enough, ive never seen you refute anything ive said.

this topic has nothiong to do with political views. i called him a moron because whenever a point is made by any of the conservatives on here, he replies with a smartass remark. rarely does "rodeo" attempt to explain his "logic."

yea, other things could have been done. but the fact of the matter is those kids only have themselves to blame. since when are individuals no longer held responsible for their actions?

if you are under the influence of a drug, and you try to enter someone else's house late at night, what else do you expect to happen? thats a lose lose situation.

Well I guess I will look at more threads in the tinderbox and pay more attention before I jump to the conclusions. However, from what I've seen you are a die hard conservative who will fight to the argue to the death over everything. The same goes for die hard liberals, yet I tend to disagree with you more i guess. I will try to be more objective though. And it sort of is a political point, because it all goes back to gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He was clearly being mugged on a subway where there was no where to run and no one to help (I assume, because it happened late at night, at least thats what I thought). He made a decision to defend himself, like many of us would.

However, there is a difference in shooting a college kid and shooting 4 men trying to clearly mug/harm you. I also think the court decision was fair. He was actually only convicted one one gun violation, considering he shot four men and paralyzed one. Did those men deserve it? Sure, but if some type of guideline is not set then anyone could shoot dead, at any time and it could be classified as self defense.

I am not anti-gun, one of my good friends owns a gun store and I enjoy learning and holding/ getting experience with different guns. I'm sure this guy felt threatened by someone trying to break into his house, but his wife was already calling 911, this guy could have just delayed the kid instead of shooting him dead.

Really it comes down to the circumstances, but for people in those situations who don't have time to think I understand they make quick decisions. I just hope they are the right ones.

I think he actually lost a civil case later and owes the families of those kids millions. The long haired pony tailed lawyer went against him...can't remember his name but he's a famous pain in the ass.

I'm sorry, but if you kill someone while driving drunk, the courts don't say "oh well, he was drunk...give him a lighter sentence."

If you bust into someone else's house, whether you're that stinking drunk or if you're trying to take something, you get what you deserve. Just MHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think he actually lost a civil case later and owes the families of those kids millions. The long haired pony tailed lawyer went against him...can't remember his name but he's a famous pain in the ass.

I'm sorry, but if you kill someone while driving drunk, the courts don't say "oh well, he was drunk...give him a lighter sentence."

If you bust into someone else's house, whether you're that stinking drunk or if you're trying to take something, you get what you deserve. Just MHO.

I agree with you to an extent here. Yet, if someone is driing drunk they get what they deserve if they are caught. Even without harming anyone they are in a ton of legal trouble, with the fines and tickets and what not.

This kid could have gotten off with public intox if he had been delayed or firmly removed by the house owner. Now it isn't the house owners responsibility to do this, and if the kid had gotten in you could add breaking and entering to the list.

Now the difference of drunk driving and being a drunk college kid looking for you bed getting charged with public intox is a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree with you to an extent here. Yet, if someone is driing drunk they get what they deserve if they are caught. Even without harming anyone they are in a ton of legal trouble, with the fines and tickets and what not.

This kid could have gotten off with public intox if he had been delayed or firmly removed by the house owner. Now it isn't the house owners responsibility to do this, and if the kid had gotten in you could add breaking and entering to the list.

Now the difference of drunk driving and being a drunk college kid looking for you bed getting charged with public intox is a big difference.

I agree with you. I just wonder how you can be that freaking drunk. I've tied one on many, many times. Never considered breaking into someone's house. If I locked myself out of my own, I'd sleep it off in the car or the porch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tough call, with so many home invasion robberies resulting in dead home owners these days......

Just do a Google, this stuff happens all the time.

The two men accused of a brutal Connecticut home invasion may not have had violent crimes in their long lists of prior convictions, but sources tell local newspapers the pair's record changed when they invaded the home of a prominent doctor early Monday morning.

"This is everyone's worst nightmare," Lt. Jay Markella, Cheshire police spokesman, told the Waterbury newspaper. "It's by far the worst thing any of us have ever seen."

Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, of Cheshire, and Steven Hayes, 44, of Winsted, were arraigned Tuesday on charges of assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, arson, larceny and risk of injury to children. More charges are pending, state police said Tuesday night. The two men could face the death penalty.

Prosecutor Michael Dearington said he had not yet decided whether to pursue the death penalty.

"I know the public consensus is they should be fried tomorrow," he said.

The state medical examiner confirmed that Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, was strangled and that her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, died of smoke inhalation. The deaths were ruled homicides.

The girls' father, Dr. William Petit Jr., a prominent endocrinologist, remained hospitalized with head injuries.

All three women were raped, sources familiar with the investigation told both the Waterbury Republican-American and Hartford Courant. Petit was beaten with a baseball bat, thrown down the basement stairs, and then tied up in the cellar.

The girls, sources told the Courant, were tied to their beds and raped repeatedly, then left to burn after gasoline was poured around their beds and ignited.

The suspects entered the Petits' Cheshire home at about 3 a.m. Monday, planning to burglarize it, state police said.

Sources familiar with the investigation tell the Republican-American that Hawke-Petit and Michaela were followed home from a supermarket Sunday by the suspects. The men then went to a Wal-Mart to buy an air rifle and a rope, and then waited about a mile-and-a-half away

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml?source=mostpop_story

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=home+invasion+robbery+murder&aq=f&oq=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The long haired pony tailed lawyer went against him...can't remember his name but he's a famous pain in the ass.

Bill Diehl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Bill Diehl?

I wanna say Ron Something or other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The home owner does not deserve to have charges pressed against him. He obviously felt he was in threat of great bodily harm or death, and he acted accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Forgot a couple things. First, when you discharge a firearm, YOU are responsible for the round. If you fire it into the air, you are to blame where ever it may land.

Second, the home owner fired two rounds, enough to stop the threat. You do not shoot an intruder/attacker in the leg. You aim for center mass, the chest, which gives you the biggest target and opportunity to hit vital organs to take down the suspect.

Sounds like the home owner did everything right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites