Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Justice, Charlotte style


Ja  Rhule

Recommended Posts

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/29983914/detail.html

A homeowner told police he caught thieves in a truck trying to steal his trailer from a home nearby on Travis Floyd Lane about 11:45 p.m. Monday.

That’s when, police said, the man chased the thieves down in his truck and shot one of them. The victim was transported to Carolinas Medical Center where he died.

Home owner probably gonna get arrested...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he shot them on his own property during a break in, fair game.

That is not correct.

It is illegal in the state of NC to use deadly force when there is no direct threat of deadly force.

We do not have strong "castle" laws in this state and unless the person who has broken in is brandishing a deadly weapon you have no right to use one. Now you might get luck and the DA may decide to let you off with a slap on the wrist, but that would be at his discretion. You can still be charges with any and all of the flavors of assault as well as anything from negligent homicide up to murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not correct.

It is illegal in the state of NC to use deadly force when there is no direct threat of deadly force.

We do not have strong "castle" laws in this state and unless the person who has broken in is brandishing a deadly weapon you have no right to use one. Now you might get luck and the DA may decide to let you off with a slap on the wrist, but that would be at his discretion. You can still be charges with any and all of the flavors of assault as well as anything from negligent homicide up to murder.

Charlotte Mecklenburg Sheriff told me one time "if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, make sure you kill them, even if a person is wounded. You will always win when there is only 1 side of that story, if the guy survives he have all right to sue you and have a very good chance to win a lawsuit against you. So always shoot to kill."

He's been a sheriff for about 30 years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte Mecklenburg Sheriff told me one time "if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, make sure you kill them, even if the person is wounded. You will always win when there is only 1 side of that story, if the guy survives he have all right to sue you and have a very good chance to win a lawsuit against you. So always shoot to kill."

He's been a sheriff for about 30 years now.

Seems legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte Mecklenburg Sheriff told me one time "if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, make sure you kill them, even if a person is wounded. You will always win when there is only 1 side of that story, if the guy survives he have all right to sue you and have a very good chance to win a lawsuit against you. So always shoot to kill."

He's been a sheriff for about 30 years now.

With that lack of integrity, sounds like he has been a sheriff for 30 years too long. Wonder if he uses that philosophy on the street also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deputy, not sheriff, most likely. I"ve heard more than one cop give people similar advice.

I understand the theory but a person who is sworn to uphold the law and tells you that if you shoot a guy in the leg because he broke into your house that you need to make sure you put one to his head so he can't tell his side of the story is advocating murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...